Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Taxation (Housing)

Mr. Norman Baker: What is his policy in respect of taxation on (a) house building and (b) house renovation. [83188]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The construction of new housing is not taxed. The renovation of existing housing is subject to VAT at the standard rate.

Mr. Baker: Is it not time that the Government took notice of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and reviewed an obviously illogical policy which is bad for the environment? Surely it would be better if green-field housing were taxed and there were less tax on the renovation and improvement of existing property. That makes sense for the environment. It has no fiscal implications in terms of the amount of money that the Government receive, but it would be a good signal to send. Will the Government pursue that policy?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's policy is to discourage green-field development and to encourage sustainable housing growth through the use of brown-field sites. He is right to say that tax may play a part in that policy. As he is aware, the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation makes it clear that we should consider tax and regulation and other items with regard to pursuing that policy. It is important that any change in tax policy does not cause further distortions, which would make the position worse. Therefore, of course the Government keep the tax position under review, because it is important that such distortion is not allowed to undermine Government policy.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The imposition of VAT on house improvement by the previous Conservative Government was undoubtedly a considerable act of folly, with damaging effects in some northern cities and the Welsh valleys, where there are very many elderly, low-income owner-occupiers who need house improvement support. When the Government's

urban task force reports next month, will the Minister carefully consider proposals that will equalise the tax treatment of new house building and house improvement, so that those elderly, low-income owner-occupiers can maintain their homes, the quality that all of us would wish?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will have noted that the previous Government put VAT on fuel, which was also damaging to those poor pensioner households. I know that, as a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, he is aware that conversion services for housing associations, and the conversion of non-residential properties into housing, are zero rated. He is right to say that we should ensure that the tax system does not discourage the conversion or renovation of any property. Of course we are considering the matter.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members are worried about the decay of buildings in town centres. Would it not be a positive step if the VAT treatment were changed to give a positive response and an impetus to the development and refurbishment of town and village-centre properties?

Dawn Primarolo: Each of those who have spoken on this question have identified a different aspect of housing policy that they wish VAT to tackle—whether it be green-field sites, brown-field sites, the renovation of the inner cities or the importance of all housing in our communities. That shows the diversity and complexity of the problem that the Government are seeking to address. I should say that just one change will not give us the solution that we are looking for, which is why the Government are reviewing the position.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will propose changes to the taxation system which would encourage further investment in the exploration and production of North sea oil and gas. [83189]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government are committed to the success of the North sea oil industry and promoting investment in this sector and in the economy more generally. The fiscal regime must be consistent with this objective while ensuring that all North sea oil companies pay their fair share of tax.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the importance of the offshore oil and gas industry to our national economy—it accounts for 350,000 jobs, 5,000 contractors and 16 per cent. of total industrial investment—and given the fact that the industry is now involved in the exploitation of marginal fields, does my hon. Friend recognise that fiscal measures can play an important part in ensuring that it remains economically viable to exploit our remaining reserves over the next 30 years? Specifically, will she consider the case for capital gains tax rollover relief, as that would be a well-targeted measure that would bring forward investment; and will she look to encourage innovation such as the recommissioning of platforms, which would have great environmental benefits?

Mrs. Roche: Of course I know that my hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters, as he is chairman of the all-party British offshore oil and gas industry parliamentary group. I strongly agree with his assessment of the great importance of the industry. That is why I have twice met representatives of the industry; and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also met them. As the House will know, there were three helpful measures in the Budget, including one to reduce compliance costs. We continue to have discussions with the industry. We should take into consideration the current rosier price of oil and not come to any hasty conclusions.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Although the industry was no doubt grateful that the Treasury backed off from its threat of additional tax last year because of the situation in the industry, and although the Minister will no doubt want to review carefully the current state of effort in the North sea compared with that prevailing until a year or two ago, will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the implications of the gas moratorium which, as well as the present rate of taxation, is sending a negative signal about the future development of the North sea?

Mrs. Roche: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will know as well as anyone who knows the industry that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement in September 1998—that, at that time, in view of the low oil prices, he would not proceed with reform of the North sea tax regime—gave the industry what it had long sought: a firm basis on which to plan for the future. As the House is well aware, the changes that we have made to business taxation—the lowering of corporation tax—will help all industry, particularly that in the North sea.

Business Taxation

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What estimate he has made of the level of tax to be paid by business in 2000–01 as a result of the Budget. [83190]

Mr. Eric Forth: What estimate he has made of the change in overall tax yield from business in 2001–02 as a result of the Budget. [83194]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): All companies that pay tax will benefit from the cuts in corporation tax that were announced in this year's Budget and in previous Budgets.

Mr. St. Aubyn: As a result of the Government's first Budget and the changes in pensions tax, business will have to pay an extra £5.5 billion in taxation next year. As a result of the Government's changes in corporation tax in their second Budget, business will have to pay an extra £2 billion in taxation next year. As a result of the environmental levy in this year's Budget, business will have to pay an extra £1.75 billion next year. Does the Chief Secretary realise that business can pay those extra

taxes only by charging its customers more, and that more than £9 billion will therefore be taken by stealth from the pockets of British people?

Mr. Milburn: I am happy to compare our record on business taxes with that of the Conservative Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in their first four years in power, the Conservative Government maintained a corporation tax rate of 52p in the pound. In our first two years in power, we have cut the main corporation tax rate to 30p in the pound and the small companies rate to 20p in the pound and have introduced a new 10p starting rate of corporation tax. Those are the lowest company taxes in the history of this country, the lowest company taxes of any country in Europe, and the lowest company taxes of any major industrialised country in the world. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the Government.

Mr. Forth: May we now please have an answer to the question? For the Chief Secretary's benefit, my question is:
What estimate he has made of the change in overall tax yield from business in 2001–02".
That is a straightforward, factual question. Why does the right hon. Gentleman insult not only the House of Commons but the entire business community by failing to answer the question, through impudence and impertinence—or is he being deliberately evasive because he knows that the answer is that business is paying more tax?

Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the views of the business community. In the past, we have listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' Opposition Members are getting very excited; they should calm down for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the views of the business community about the Budget and previous Budgets. I remind him what some leading members of the business community have been saying about the Budget. I remind him, for example, that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said:
Overall. not a bad business Budget.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction in the rates of corporation tax has been widely welcomed, as has the extension of first-year capital allowances to small and medium-sized companies? Is he also aware that any incentives to manufacturing industry are difficult to obtain? One of the few ways of achieving those incentives is through capital allowances, so will he perhaps consider some increase in the capital allowances, particularly for manufacturing industry?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for the Budget measures. As he rightly says, the cuts in corporation tax benefit 270,000 companies, and companies paying tax up to the level of £50,000 a year stand to benefit from those cuts. Many more companies on top of that—in the manufacturing and service sectors—will benefit from the extension of first-year capital allowances. I know that that is widely welcomed, in manufacturing in particular. We recognise the difficulties that some manufacturing companies face at the


moment, and we hope very much that the Budget measures will help them to grow and prosper for the future.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Government accepted them, the total cost of the Opposition proposals made in the Committee considering the Finance Bill in the past two weeks—the abolition of the fuel escalator; the abolition of any increase in duty on tobacco; the lowering of vehicle excise duty for 1400 cc cars; and the retention of the married couples allowance for all new pensioners, so that we will all have to get married when we are 65—would have been billions? Ultimately, that money would have to be paid by the wealth creators and businesses of this country. Their commitment to £40 billion for health and education combined with low tax for business is a complete sham—crocodile tears from a discredited Opposition.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an example of Tory taxation by stealth. The Tories' figures do not add up, and no amount of double-talk from the shadow Chancellor about his commitment to schools and to hospitals can disguise that fact. If they had their way, they would load more taxes on business and, indeed, on individuals. They cannot be trusted, either with the state of the public finances or with our country's vital public services.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Chief Secretary aware that there is a great deal of concern in British business that, as a result of the Government's perfectly valid concern about tax avoidance, there could be a considerably increased tax burden on legitimate businesses, notably through Inland Revenue 35 as it is applied to the computing industry and through the application of value added tax on the internal transactions of banks? How much revenue does he propose to raise in that way, and what assurances is he giving to business that he will not penalise legitimate companies?

Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look in the Red Book, he will see what the tax yield would be from that measure. As we have made clear in the Finance Bill Committee, no legitimate service businesses will be affected by this proposed measure.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the climate change levy is deemed to be tax neutral, because of the associated national insurance rebate, but does he recognise that there is a severe threat that jobs in the high-energy industries will be transferred abroad? That would be a severe penalty, and there would be no environmental advantage from it. I hope that that will be taken note of in the discussions that are taking place; I know that the Government are anxious to preserve jobs in this country.

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, an extensive consultation about how best to introduce the new climate change levy is under way. I can tell him and the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor met the Confederation of British Industry yesterday to discuss that, among other matters. We are well aware of the

concerns of the energy-intensive industries, which is precisely why we are going through the sort of consultation exercise that we are.

Cider Duty

Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the impact of changes in cider duty announced in the Budget on producers of bottle-fermented cider. [83191]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Discussions with the National Association of Cider Makers suggest that there are fewer than 30 producers of bottle-fermented sparkling cider, some of which are exempted from paying any duty because their production is below the registration threshold. Of those who pay duty, most also produce mainstream traditional ciders and are not, therefore, reliant solely on bottle-fermented sparkling cider production for their livelihood.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, but is it not the case that in order to deal, rather ineffectually, with an infraction proceeding from Italy for a rather unpleasant-sounding beverage, she is driving out a traditional British product of high quality, which is made in my constituency? Is it beyond the wit of the Treasury to devise an exemption that would maintain the production of bottle-fermented cider? If it cannot do that, is not the inference that, for the Treasury, far from small being beautiful, small and rural industries simply do not count?

Mrs. Roche: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who I would have expected to know rather more about the subject. [Interruption.] I say that only because his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), his party's spokesman on this matter, said during a debate on the Finance Bill:
The vast majority of cider makers will not be affected … the industry as a whole is not worried. It has been consulted, and has agreed with the Government's approach."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 May 1999; c.41–3.]
[Interruption.] I remind Conservative Members that the process started in 1996; they started it. We consulted widely in the industry. This proved to be the only way forward, and it was certainly supported by the vast majority of cider makers.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What can the Chancellor possibly have meant when he told the House during his Budget speech that there would be no increase in alcohol duty this side of the millennium?

Mrs. Roche: I know that it is a bit early in the morning, but the hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear my earlier reply. There was no new increase; the increase was started by the Conservatives when they were in government. The then Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), initiated it in 1996, nearly four years ago, and the industry knew all about it. Let me tell the Conservative party that it is no good doing another U-turn; Labour Members are far too used to that.

Unemployment

Sir David Madel: What projection he has made for unemployment levels at the end of the 1999–2000 financial year. [83192]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In line with the practice of previous Administrations, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment, but, for the purposes of projecting social security spending, the Government have introduced a new and deliberately more cautious unemployment assumption, based on an average of outside forecasts.
The official figure for unemployment now stands—according to the definition of the International Labour Organisation—at 266,000 less than when the Government took office, and on a claimant count at 355,000 less.

Sir David Madel: Employment in manufacturing has fallen over the past four months, and is set to go on falling. Over-regulation and stealth tax policies are making matters worse. Why do the Government keep slithering out of their responsibilities for manufacturing industry—or is it someone else's fault that things are going wrong?

Mr. Brown: Under the last Administration, manufacturing unemployment fell from 7 million to 4.1 million. It is still above 4 million under the present Government. However, the latest figures show that manufacturing output rose last month, despite everything that the Opposition have been saying about manufacturing.
I am surprised that, when tabling a question about unemployment, the hon. Gentleman chose not to refer to the new deal on unemployment, which is doing much for his constituency and many others. The shadow Chancellor has called the new deal a fraud and a waste of money—[Interruption.] He did say that. But the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) was pictured with a new deal entrant a few months ago, and was quoted as saying that he was delighted by the scheme. He also said:
When we are returned to power we will build on this scheme, which is doing a lot to help people".
The Conservative party should take the advice of the shadow junior health Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and go back to the drawing board.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Did my right hon. Friend see yesterday's statement by the Bank of England that the economy was now on course for growth with price stability? Will he suggest to Conservative Members, and to the shadow Chancellor in particular, that the shadow Chancellor should consult more widely with business representatives, rather than just talking to representatives of Asda? We have a 4.6 per cent. unemployment rate; and businesses up and down the country welcome the new deal, and welcome the creation of a business environment in which they can get on with the job.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to Asda. If the shadow Chancellor were to talk to the person from Asda, who is also a Conservative Member, he would hear him say about the Budget:

We'd welcome the help for small business. I think that's good. We'd welcome the reduction in corporation tax and lower corporation tax for small business. That's good … everyone in the country is dead keen on it"—
employee share ownership—
and that's good. Overall, not a bad business Budget.
Those are the words of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that the biggest continuing threat to jobs in farming, food production, tourism and manufacturing is the continuing high exchange rate and high interest rates, compared with those of our main partners? Is it not time that he had a strategy for bringing our exchange rate to a more competitive level, and our interest rates into line with those in our major markets? When will he do that?

Mr. Brown: The biggest threat to jobs in any sector would be the pursuit of the wrong macro-economic policies—the policies that were pursued under the previous Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees. There will be no return to stop-go, boom-and-bust policies. We have kept inflation low, we have made the Bank of England independent, and we have set tough fiscal disciplines. All those disciplines are now yielding results in terms of both the inflation rate and the growth path of the economy, but we have still to have some answers from the Opposition. They oppose Bank of England independence. They oppose all the measures that we are taking that are to do with employment—the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal. They do not have an economic policy and, sometimes, I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats do.

Mr. Derek Twigg: One of the problems in terms of unemployment is that the Opposition have been talking down the economy for the past two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointed out, the Bank of England said that the economy is set to grow, and Barclays says that there will be no recession. Is it not true that, in that context, the new deal is even more important in getting people trained and skilled for jobs?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish that the Opposition party would now welcome the new deal and that, instead of the shadow Chancellor saying that it is a failure, a waste of money and even a fraud, he would respond to the fact that 250,000 young people are now benefiting from the new deal, that the number of young people unemployed for more than six months has been cut by 56 per cent. since the election, and that long-term unemployment has fallen by 42 per cent. I hope that he will take the advice of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, welcome the new deal and wish that it could be extended.

Mr. Francis Maude: The Chancellor will recall that, in 1989, when the European Commission last proposed a job-destroying withholding tax on savings—[Interruption.] The question is about employment, and the tax is a job-destroying measure. At that time, the measure was quietly and politely strangled at birth by the then Conservative Government. Although the tax would have


destroyed fewer jobs because it excluded eurobonds, in opposition, Labour supported us in ensuring that it never even went into negotiation.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman's negotiation now not about whether jobs will be destroyed in Britain by the withholding tax, but about how many and whose? Why cannot he just say no to that wretched tax, so that people who fear for their jobs can have those fears put to rest?

Mr. Brown: I have made it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom will not accept any directive that requires member states to introduce a withholding tax. It has been absolutely clear for months. It is only the Conservative party's obsession with finding conspiracies in every part of Europe that allows it to use a question on employment simply to talk about the withholding tax.

Mr. Maude: I do not think it eccentric to use a question on unemployment to talk about a European measure that would destroy jobs; it is directly relevant to unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the connection, that is perhaps part of the problem that the City of London faces. How many jobs is it acceptable to destroy as the price of his going with the flow in Europe?
Mr. Monti is still drawing his salary two months after being fired from his job. The 10,000 people who will lose their jobs thanks to the tax will not be so lucky. The next time Mr. Monti swaggers into London to lecture Britons and to threaten them with higher Euro stealth taxes, why cannot the Chancellor just tell him to get lost?

Mr. Brown: First, it is very difficult to take lectures about European legislation from the man who signed the Maastricht treaty. Secondly, it is not true to say that the measure was off the table when we came into office; it was on the table and being discussed. Thirdly, because the right hon. Gentleman sees a conspiracy in every part of Europe, he will not accept what I have said all along: the UK will not accept any directive that requires members to introduce and impose a withholding tax. I have made that absolutely clear. It is about time that Conservative Members took what they said they were going to do to heart and listened.

Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, given last year's very worrying measures of business confidence, yesterday's estimate by the Bank of England of a gentle take-off in growth was not only very encouraging but unprecedented? Will he spell out which of the Government's policies he believes have contributed to creating that growth, and which future policies will ensure that it continues? Will he also assure the House that he will not be thrown off by an Opposition who seem to be unsure whether they believe that public spending is reckless or desirable, whether the Bank of England should be independent, and whether they would raise or lower business taxes?

Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I also think that the Opposition should take to heart the comments of the junior shadow Health Minister—who shall remain a junior shadow Minister—who said of the speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) a few weeks ago:

You can't build a strategy on unclear thinking: that's the cart before the horse. We need clear thinking".
He also said:
We've got to go back to the drawing-board and no longer just scrabble around in the hope of winning short-term engagements".
As my hon. Friend says, the Conservative party has a lot of thinking to do.
As for the Government's economic policy, we shall continue to steer a course of stability, to achieve the low inflation that we need to make possible the growth and employment creation currently happening in the United Kingdom. As I said, since the general election, more than 500,000 extra jobs have been created. There are now more people in employment in our country than at any time in our history.

VAT (Works of Art)

Mr. John Wilkinson: What is his estimate of the additional revenue to be derived from the proposed increase in VAT on works of art imported into the UK from outside the EU in each of the first three years of operation. [83193]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): In the first two full years, the amount of money collected from imposition of VAT at 5 per cent. on works of art will be £10 million. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are not convinced of the case for raising VAT on art to 5 per cent.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer. However, is it not the case that, in the first year after imposition of VAT at 2.5 per cent.—under the seventh directive of the European Union on imported antiques, works of art and collectables from outside the European Union—imports decreased by 40 per cent., from £1 billion to £600 million? Is she aware that the United Kingdom has 12,000 art dealers and 50,000 jobs in the trade, most of which are in London? She says that she is not convinced of the case for increasing the tax. How was it that she was unable—being such a good European—to persuade the European Commission not to waive the previously agreed derogation to 1 July? The tax, like so many European taxes, will destroy jobs. Is it not time that the Government cut the Gordian knot and did not harmonise tax with Europe?

Dawn Primarolo: I should first correct the hon. Gentleman. The unanimously agreed deal to which the previous Government signed up—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), when a Minister, signed the explanatory memorandum—stated that we should apply VAT at 2.5 per cent., rising to 5 per cent. There was no vote on whether to increase the 2.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. The previous Government made the commitment to increase VAT to 5 per cent., and the increase was agreed unanimously.
Since the election of the current Government, we have been trying, working very closely with the art market, to persuade our European partners that VAT should remain at 2.5 per cent. We shall continue to negotiate on the matter, which is a darn sight more than the previous Government did for the art market—they sold the market down the river by agreeing to 5 per cent.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why are our European partners being so sticky about the issue, which affects a lot of jobs?

Dawn Primarolo: The issue is whether there is an unfair distribution between European art markets. The Government have put the case that the direct competition to the London market comes from New York, so anything that undermined the London market would be bad for all European markets. We are still trying to convince our partners to reopen the issue. Unfortunately, we cannot use the veto because the deal is signed and delivered. It cannot be reopened without unanimity.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Paymaster General aware that the British art market, which employs more than 50,000 people, faces a threat not only from the doubling of VAT, but from the European directive which will impose a compulsory resale levy, which will drive the market out of London—indeed, out of the European Union—to centres such as New York? If she really wants to stand up for British industry, why is she not standing up to the European Union, whether on the road haulage industry, which faces uncompetitive fuel duties, on the City of London, which faces a withholding tax that should have been vetoed months ago, or on the British art market, which is facing new threats to its existence? Why do the Government not stand up for British industry instead of pursuing their mission to be popular in Europe?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek: he defended the fuel duty escalator in the Chamber when he was a Minister in the previous Government. His Government failed to stand up to Europe when agreeing to allow 5 per cent. VAT on the art market immediately. I read his pamphlet on the art market with some interest. I acknowledge that he knows a considerable amount about the subject, but, if he knows so much, why did his Government do such a bad deal?

Child Benefit

Ms Joan Ryan: What representations he has received regarding the increase in child benefit announced in the Budget. [83195]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have received a number of representations, including those made at a meeting with the Child Poverty Action Group before the Budget. Most have welcomed the fact that child benefit has risen by 30 per cent. since we came into government and from next April will be £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children.

Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the increase in child benefit, which will help 13,800 families in my constituency. My real reason for tabling the question is to tell him that I have met a number of pensioner groups recently. As ever with pensioners, they were interested in more than just the policies that benefit them directly. They also expressed interest in and support for measures that are beneficial to children, particularly the increase in child benefit. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to me, so that I can confirm to parents

and grandparents in my constituency, that the Government will continue to pursue policies that support families when they need it most, which is when they are bringing up children?

Mr. Brown: All our changes, including the working families tax credit and the child tax allowance which will be introduced from 2001, are designed to give families help when they need it most—when children are growing up. Some 7 million mothers and 12 million children will gain from the increase in child benefit. It is the biggest rise that this country has ever seen and is backed up by our working families tax credit, which will start in October. There will be a minimum income of £200 for families in work with children, which will benefit 1.5 million families. I hope that the Opposition will support the measure instead of opposing it.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Chancellor not recognise that, although the increase in child benefit will at least go to the child, the changes that he is proposing through the working families tax credit will result in the benefit being lost to the child, because in most cases it will go to the married father? Will he admit that the Labour party has failed to deliver on its election pledge of reducing welfare spending?

Mr. Brown: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand these facts. First, child benefit goes to the mother. She seems to have misunderstood that. Secondly, the working families tax credit means an overall increase in family income amounting in some cases to £40 or £50 a week. Thirdly, our proposals for the working families tax credit, backed up by child benefit, are far superior to those now floated by the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Conservative party for a transferable tax allowance that would give a millionaire £1,734 as a result of tax relief and, in some cases, would give nothing to the lowest-paid in the country.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is the child benefit increase a way of showing how the Government are standing up for the many, and not the few? Is that not in stark contrast to the priorities of the Conservative party, which would spend hundreds of millions of pounds on cutting stamp duty on properties valued at over £500,000?

Mr. Brown: I have looked at the voting of the Conservative party on the Finance Bill and the Budget, and it has committed more than £7 billion to measures that include cutting the tax rate for smokers. That money would not be available for the health service or for education, and that makes absolutely hollow the attempt by the Conservative party to put itself on the side of the health service and parents educating their children. As the Minister for Public Health has reminded them, the Tories have to go back and think these things out because none of their figures add up.

Road Fuel Duty

Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment he has made of the effect of the road fuel duty escalator on (a) economic growth and (b) Government revenue in each of the next five years. [83196]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed to ensuring that economic growth takes place in a sustainable way that respects the environment and is fair to future generations. The fuel duty escalator—which we inherited from the previous Government—is an important element of a package of tax measures that will contribute towards the aim of achieving economic growth while protecting and, where possible, enhancing the environment.
The revenue gained from the escalator in the next three financial years is shown in the March 1999 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that that answer treated my question with the same contempt received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who made specific requests for information and found that none was forthcoming. Has the Treasury team not worked out that the purpose of an escalator is to accelerate one's movement from one floor to another? Why are they behaving like a group of demented four-year-olds, out of control in a department store—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use better language in this House.

Mr. Blunt: Why are the Treasury team taking the rest of the economy—the grown-up economy—way past any sensible destination and inflicting enormous damage on our rail freight industry? The only things that will be getting a lift from the ridiculous decision to stay on the escalator way past any sensible point will be our goods on foreign-owned trucks.

Ms Hewitt: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. The previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, the effect of which, by 2010, will be to save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon annually—a measure that was in the green manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood for election. As the Budget report clearly set out, the revenue raised in the current year from the fuel duty escalator—which we inherited from the Conservative Government—is £1.7 billion. The Conservative party, which voted against the measure, needs to tell us how it would replace that hole in the public finances and how it would meet the Kyoto targets to which it was committed in government.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend not think it remarkable that, in 1993—when the fuel tax escalator was introduced—the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was not only a failed Tory candidate in West Bromwich, but a political adviser to a former Tory Transport Minister?
Is it not the case that three inquiries conducted under the previous Conservative Administration all concluded that heavy goods vehicles did not meet their true track costs? Is it not also a fact that rail freight, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned for some bizarre reason, has increased by 15 per cent. in the past year? He has rather made a fool of himself there.
Is it not a pity that Conservative Members not only have failed to condemn the illegal activities of certain truckers, but apparently support those truckers in their demands,

which would appear to be for British social costs and French diesel prices? Will my hon. Friend make it plain that those demands are impossible and that, as long as those activities continue, there can be no question of the escalator being reconsidered?

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made his point extremely well. He reminds me of the remarks of the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who rightly said that hon. Members who support the Kyoto targets, as the previous Government did, but refuse to support the road fuel duty escalator, are sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.
I must not apply that comment specifically to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and of course I will not do so, but I emphasise the fact that the road fuel duty escalator plays a vital part, under this Government as under the previous Government, in ensuring that we meet our environmental targets and have a balanced and integrated transport policy.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that many small haulage firms are becoming desperate, as they are now only weeks away from bankruptcy? Her answer, that the Government intend to continue with the escalator until 2010, will simply increase that despair. Does she understand that more and more people feel that the Government's road haulage forum is a waste of time, given their refusal to abandon the fuel escalator or the increase in excise duty? Will the Government commission a full independent report specifically on the competitiveness of the industry, and give an undertaking to act on it?

Ms Hewitt: I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will support our policy of discussion with the industry, rather than the policy of disruption pursued by some of the hauliers. The road haulage forum is proving an extremely useful venue for serious and constructive discussions with the industry—something that the previous Government did not undertake—and of course we are considering the industry's competitiveness.
In the Budget, we widened the differential between the duty on diesel and on ultra-low-sulphur diesel, which is set to take almost 100 per cent. of the diesel market; we cut corporation tax for small companies; we reduced employers' national -insurance; and we introduced a new starting rate of 10p for small companies. All those measures will help the industry.
There is a problem regarding fuel efficiency and overcapacity in the industry, and the best British road haulage fleets are almost twice as fuel-efficient as the worst. We need to address that issue, and the road fuel duty escalator gives exactly the right incentives to the industry to improve its fuel efficiency.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed climate change levy on (a) the aluminium industry and (b) other high-energy using manufacturing industries. [83198]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Following Lord Marshall's recommendation, the Government are not taking an across-the-board approach to the climate change levy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Budget day, we intend to set significantly lower rates of levy for those energy-intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a useful initial meeting with the associations representing the energy-intensive sectors and detailed negotiations with those sectors, including the aluminium industry, are now under way.

Mr. Prentice: That is a very reassuring answer, but even with the 50 per cent. reduction for energy-intensive industries such as aluminium there are fears that production costs will rise dramatically. I have been told that the aluminium industry anticipates a rise of perhaps 12 per cent. per tonne, which would drive it offshore. I was reassured by what I heard about discussions and negotiations taking place, with a concluding date of 28 May, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take into account and give full weight to the concerns expressed by the industries.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The points that he makes are precisely those that we are taking into account in our discussions with the energy-intensive sectors. I stress that the 50 per cent. lower rate in the Customs and Excise consultation document is purely an illustrative assumption. It is not a statement about what the lower rate might be for any energy-intensive sector. That lower rate will depend on the stringency of the targets to which the sectors agree. In line with our published statement of intent on the principles of environmental taxation, international competitiveness is one of the key issues that we consider for any environmental tax, including the climate change levy.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that British Steel estimates that the climate change levy will add £200 million to its annual tax bill, whereas the offsetting reduction in national insurance is worth only £5 million a year to it, does the Economic Secretary acknowledge that the levy is yet another clear example of the Government's policy of taxation by stealth, which has served to throttle manufacturing industry in this country and plunge it into recession while she has been a Minister?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, the new levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business: it will be revenue neutral. As I have already said on a similar point, we are now looking in detail at the different energy-intensive sectors, what each of them is willing to do to improve energy efficiency and how we should respond by introducing a significantly lower rate of climate change levy.
I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman, judging from his remarks, seems to have abandoned the commitment that the Conservative Government made to meeting the Kyoto target. The climate change levy is an

essential part of meeting those targets. We estimate that it will save about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my hon. Friend of the apprehension of the national leadership of British Steel plc and Shotton steelworkers in my constituency about the levy, not least in view of the ruthless foreign dumping of steel products and the high value of the pound? Will she receive a deputation to hear our fears? May I suggest that she can best assist manufacturing in my constituency by insisting that assisted area status be retained and that objective 2 status be given to us?

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend and discuss this and other matters of particular concern to his constituents. Treasury Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are examining carefully the impact on competitiveness of the energy-intensive sectors. That will be the guiding principle when we come to set the significantly reduced rates of climate change levy in return for sector agreements to promote and deliver greater energy efficiency. I remind my hon. Friend of the significant reductions in corporation tax that we have delivered, which will be of great help to businesses in his constituency as well as across the country.

Dividend Tax Credits

Mr. Edward Davey: If he will review his policy to abolish dividend tax credits for people with incomes below the level of the personal income tax allowance. [83199]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): No. We will not be reviewing the decision.

Mr. Davey: That answer was, unfortunately, not surprising. May I tell the hon. Lady that she should be reviewing the decision? Will she consider talking to her predecessor, who at least appeared to show some sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who will be hit by the policy? Will she consider meeting an all-party delegation of hon. Members who have expressed concern about the matter and want to see the poorest pensioners protected from this tax increase?

Dawn Primarolo: The Government's record on helping poor pensioners is clear. The proposals in the Budget contained the winter fuel allowance and the minimum income guarantee. The minimum tax guarantee was also introduced. The question of helping poor pensioners has been discussed extensively in the House over nearly two years, and the hon. Gentleman will know the reasons for the reform. He should stop trying to make spending commitments, but should support the Government in ensuring that policies concentrate on the poorest pensioners.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why do the Government insist on hitting those of our poorest pensioners who have a small amount of savings? The Government are not content with abolishing dividend tax credit for those pensioners who are below the personal


allowance threshold and therefore did not pay any tax at all. That was a mean-minded measure, but now they have introduced another—the highly spun 10p tax rate, which will not apply to pensioners with savings. Why is that?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, savings are dealt with very fairly in the tax system. The introduction of the lop tax rate will benefit those pensioners who pay tax on their income. As a result of the Government's proposals, only about one third of pensioners will now pay tax. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Budget proposals, and especially the winter fuel allowance, did a great deal to help pensioners.

National Insurance

Mr. Richard Page: What estimate he has made of the change in the amount in national insurance payable by the self-employed in 2000–01 as a result of the March 1999 Budget. [83200]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We estimate that the extra amount payable by the self-employed for 2000–01 is £240 million.

Mr. Page: This is the second time that I have asked this question at Treasury questions. Last time, I got an appalling reply from the Financial Secretary, who completely avoided the question, and I thank the Paymaster General for coming up with the right answer this time—second time lucky.
What evaluation did the Treasury carry out of the effect that the change will have on the self-employed? Will they not be brutally hit by this large increase?

Dawn Primarolo: I inform the hon. Gentleman—very gently—that his question today is different from his question at the previous Treasury questions. Last time, he asked about the amount paid, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave him the correct answer. Today, he asked about liability, and I have answered his question. Both the answers that he has received are correct. The changes to class 2 and class 4 national insurance for the self-employed will help them enormously by ensuring that their entitlement to benefits moves closer to that of those in employment. They also distribute national insurance liability much more fairly among the self-employed.

Ms Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware that trade unions such as the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have

warmly welcomed the measures to tighten the system of national insurance contributions and tax in the construction industry. However, there is concern that Government agencies are not enforcing sufficiently rigorously the classification of construction workers for national insurance contributions. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that the new regulations are enforced properly?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend raises a question about the construction industry scheme, and the 714 certificates. I am aware of the concerns among trade unions and the construction industry about the effectiveness of the scheme. We are constantly reviewing the successful registration of those in the construction industry who are required to register. Like me, my hon. Friend may have had the advantage this morning of hearing the radio information bulletins advertising to those in the construction industry that they are required to get the certificate. The clear message was, "No certificate, no pay."

Mr. Nick Gibb: The difference in the wording of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was between "paid" and "payable". Ministers are playing a dangerous game of semantics to avoid revealing to the House the extra taxes that they are imposing on people. Will the Minister confirm that, when all the Government's changes to employees' national insurance are taken into account, millions of people in middle Britain who earn £27,000 a year or more will pay significantly higher national insurance contributions? Is that not yet another stealth tax increase from a party that promised not to raise taxes at all?

Dawn Primarolo: I cannot be held accountable if the hon. Gentleman does not understand how national accounting works or the difference between liability and the amount actually paid. He is an accountant, and I thought that he understood these matters, but perhaps he needs to grapple further with that point.
Millions of low-paid employees will pay around £165 a year less as a result of our national insurance changes and 960,000 low-paid workers have been taken out of national insurance contributions while still having their benefit position protected. For the self-employed, we have dealt with the class 2 problem by reducing contributions from £6.55 to £2, and we have made sure that liability to pay national insurance is more fairly distributed across the self-employed instead of being loaded towards the low-paid self-employed.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
TUESDAY 18—There will be a debate on Kosovo on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY—Until 12.30 pm, there will be a debate on the third report from the Health Committee on the welfare of former British child migrants, followed by a debate on the fifth report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on regional Eurostar services. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on fraud in the European Union budget, followed by a debate entitled "Conditions of Service of NHS Personnel". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 20 MAY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the second report from the Modernisation Committee on sittings of the House in Westminster Hall.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—There will be a debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I remind the House that that is the pre-Cologne debate
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three hour pre-recess debate.
Motion to approve the first report from the Administration Committee on the proposal to reopen the line of route during the summer Adjournment.
Motion relating to Members' travel to EU institutions.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
Motion on the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 May there will be a debate on assistance to new independent states and Mongolia in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 19 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 5263/99, Assistance to NIS and Mongolia; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-xi, HC 34-xiii (1998-99).]
When I said two weeks ago that the House would rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May, I said that that would be subject to the progress of business. Again, subject to the progress of provisional business, I hope that the House may now rise at the end of business on Wednesday 26 May and return, as previously announced, on Tuesday 8 June.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing next week's business and for indicating the provisional business for the following week, and her qualified reassurance about the Whitsun recess.
I welcome the right hon. Lady's response to my request for regular statements and debates on Kosovo and the finding of time for a debate on Tuesday. However, what has happened to the planned debates on defence in the world and on personnel matters in the armed forces?
When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport answers questions on Monday will he clarify the confusion as to what he said to Mr. Greg Dyke about the job of Director-General of the BBC? Has the right hon. Lady seen Mr. Dyke's letter in The Independent today, which states that the Minister's written parliamentary answer on Monday was "slightly misleading"? Mr. Dyke goes on to assert:
Mr. Smith asked me whether I was likely to be a candidate.
Is the House not entitled to a fuller explanation of what has been going on?
Further to my question last week, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what arrangements she proposes for debates on public expenditure and the economy? The House is entitled to an answer and we have been pressing for a reply for some time.
Last Thursday, when I asked about the inquiry into the leak of Macpherson report, which occurred more than two and a half months ago, with a limited number of suspects, the right hon. Lady said:
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an inquiry into anything that the Government have done".
Will she therefore confirm that Home Office Ministers have been exonerated from leaking the document and will she ask the Home Secretary to report the full outcome of the inquiry before the Whitsun recess?
Last week, I also asked about the freedom of information Bill and the right hon. Lady replied:
I … hope to be able to report soon on the freedom of information Bill."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1090.]
Will the House get a statement from the Home Secretary on Thursday?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that if there are any important changes in Government policy next week, the appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House? Before the last election, the present Foreign Secretary said of Labour's policy on the Tote,
I can authoritatively bring down the curtain on this story. There will be no proposal to sell the Tote.
Was it not a discourtesy to the House to slip out a total reversal of policy on an important national institution by way of a written question?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the debate on Kosovo. I can assure him that we have not lost sight of the undertaking to find time for debates on defence in the world, or indeed on personnel, but he will appreciate that we are trying to balance the need for those debates, which we fully recognise, with keeping the House up to date on events in Kosovo.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about what he described as "confusion" over Mr. Greg Dyke's application to be Director-General of the BBC. I have seen his letter and 1 see no confusion in it. To ask what has been going on suggests that the right hon. Gentleman supports conspiracy theories, of which I had not suspected him. As he said, he will have the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about those matters should he wish to do so.
I am continuing to pursue the issue of debates on public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly been pressing for that matter to be resolved for some little time. I sympathise. I recall having precisely the same experience when the previous Government changed their policy and withdrew the arrangements for debating public expenditure. To the best of my recollection, during all the time that I remained shadow Chief Secretary and until the subsequent election, we were never able to persuade the then Government to resolve the matter, so I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and can assure him that I will report to the House as soon as I can.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm whether there would be a statement next week on the freedom of information Bill. Obviously, such matters are subject to progress, but I certainly hope that that will be possible in the very near future and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a full statement.
I reject the charge of discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some observations that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made before the election. The Home Secretary, or whoever is responsible, has made the position on the Tote clear. While I sympathise with the request for a statement on absolutely every matter that comes along, the Government must balance when we make statements and when we find time for debates. We will continue to do so to the best of our ability.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend like to assure me, particularly in the light of the motion on the Order Paper on the size of the quorum for Select Committees, that Her Majesty's Government not only support the work of those Committees but consider them to be of considerable importance? Since more and more members of Select Committees are being taken away from their sittings to sit on Committees considering Bills, when other hon. Members could readily take their place, will both usual offices please seriously consider whether they want that Committee system to work? If they do, some very hard thinking must take place about the organisation of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government place great importance on the work of Select Committees. From her question, I am not sure whether she is aware that the motion has been tabled in response to a request that went to the Chair of the Liaison

Committee for endorsement from the Chair of a Select Committee that is pursuing a joint investigation because it believes that to be the most sensible course.

Mr. Eric Forth: Outrageous.

Mrs. Beckett: It is matter for the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that that is outrageous. The Chairs of a number of Select Committees have officially made that request because they believe that it is the right way to tackle the business before them. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to second-guess their decision. I do not feel inclined to do so because that would not show respect for their judgment.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We entirely endorse the comment of the Conservative spokesman on the scandalous way in which the announcement on privatisation of the Tote was made yesterday. We sought a statement then and would have been happy to afford some of our time today for one.
On the business, or non-business, on Thursday 27 May, I am surprised that the Leader of the House thinks that there is no necessity for the House to meet then. There are several pressing issues that Members on both sides of the House want to debate. For example, when does she plan to take the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill? Does she intend a two-day debate and will she seek, by consensus, a programme motion?
What is the Government's intention on the handling of referendums? I understand that the private Member Referendums Bill has passed all its stages. There is widespread concern throughout the House that we should regularise such matters. Will the Government afford all that Bill the support that it requires to reach the statute book this Session or introduce their own Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I am sorry to learn that the hon. Gentleman shares the view of the Conservative party on the way in which the Tote announcement was made. I believe that Madam Speaker made the point yesterday that there is nothing remotely unusual about Ministers announcing proposals sometimes by written answer and sometimes by statements to the House. There is no discourtesy to the House in the method chosen.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman pressed for the House to meet on Thursday 27 May and said that he was surprised that it would not. I shall bear in mind his passionate wish for the House to sit slightly longer. I would not normally say this, but I feel entitled to note that, as the attendance of his party is a little variable, I am surprised to learn that it is keen to sit on extra days.
I am not in a position to announce when we will take the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill but I realise that the Bill has substantial implications that the House will want properly to debate. A programme motion is a matter to be considered elsewhere. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought on the private Member's Bill. Any Government are rightly cautious in their approach to such matters, but we will bring forward our own proposals in due course and, I hope, in good order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On next week's business on welfare and cuts in benefits, does my right hon. Friend know of any further discussions with a view to ensuring that what we have already heard from the Government is not the last word? Will further discussions continue? Does she accept that it is unfortunate that next week it is proposed on one day to cut benefits from new claimants while on another day the Government will spend money on the Balkans? Does she agree that it is not smart politics to be spending money on smart bombs while cutting benefit for people who are disabled?

Mrs. Beckett: May I welcome my hon. Friend back to business questions? The whole House expressed regret at his absence—although that may not entirely please him—when he was unable to be with us. I welcome him back to his place.
My hon. Friend has rightly said that we shall have a debate on welfare reform early next week. My understanding is that Ministers continue to discuss the range of issues and proposals contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill with interested parties, including representatives of those people who suffer from disability. My hon. Friend refers to cuts in benefits for new claimants. I am sure that he is well aware that, as a result of the overall package that the Government are introducing, the amount paid in benefits will increase. However, I realise that there are concerns about the balance of that package. I can only say to my hon. Friend that discussion on those matters continues and that there will be a debate next week on which people can focus.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on early-day motion 638?
[That this House notes with concern the incident on 6th May in which a large block of ice fell through the roof of Mr. and Mrs. Smith's home at Hare Street, Hertfordshire; further notes the concern of local residents about large blocks of ice and debris falling from aircraft onto their homes; and calls the Government to review safety procedures and provide immediate reassurance to the residents of Hertfordshire.]
That motion is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and other Members representing Hertfordshire.
I want to highlight an event that took place recently in my constituency when my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, were asleep in the middle of the night and a large block of ice—apparently from an aircraft—crashed through their roof, destroying their bedside table and almost killing them. In that debate, would it be possible to seek a proper review of the procedures for aircraft safety in such circumstances? I want to press for some reassurance for other residents of Cottered, Ardeley and that part of my constituency, who are naturally worried that the same thing might happen to them.

Mrs. Beckett: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Of course, it has never happened before—May 1997?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position, such events have, sadly, happened in the past. I fear that I cannot offer the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) a debate during Government time next week. I am sure that he is taking other opportunities to raise the matter and to press for the review and reassessment to which he referred. Indeed, if that leads him to press for further time in the House, it is of course open to him to request a formal Adjournment debate.

Ms Ruth Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on widows entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme and on the appalling legacy left to the Labour Government by the Conservative Administration? Many former members of that Administration still sit on the Opposition Benches.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. She will be aware—as is the whole House—that the change now under way dates from 1986, although it was not publicised in Department of Social Security leaflets until 1996. I am not sure how fruitful a debate would be, because we do not have access to the papers of the previous Administration. We do not how it was possible for such a change, in effect, to be withheld from the public for so long. However, those who do know include the current Leader of the Opposition, who was an Under-Secretary and a Minister in the Department of Social Security, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and, indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—all of whom were Ministers in the Department during the relevant period.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the controversy that is raging among disabled groups and charities? I am thinking especially about the recent resignations from the disability benefits forum in protest at Government policy. I know that we are having a debate next week about specific cuts, but people are asking for a bigger debate about the way in which disabled people increasingly feel badly treated by the Government. Those resignations were not undertaken lightly; the people who resigned are well-respected. As joint-chairman of the all-party group on disablement, I know that I speak exactly as Lord Ashley would do in criticism of the Government and their treatment of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect for the members of the disability benefits forum. I regret their decision to resign, as do the entire Government, although I understand that those individuals will continue to give advice and to discuss matters of policy detail. In the short term, the Labour Government will increase the resources for people with disabilities. During the benefit changes of the 1980s, the previous Conservative Government tried to


introduce the biggest benefits cuts for the most severely disabled people that the country has ever known, so I will not accept any strictures from the Opposition.

Mr. David Winnick: I have no difficulty with Tuesday's business, as I fully support the action that is being taken against the terrible crime of ethnic cleansing. I am sure that, if there were to be a vote, the action would receive overwhelming support in the House, as it does in the country.
On Monday's business, however, although as a Member in the previous Parliament I recognise that we require no lectures on the disabled from the Conservatives, whose shameful conduct many of us remember, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain aspects of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that I for one would find it extremely difficult to support in the Lobby? I do not suggest that she should depart from collective Cabinet responsibility, but would it be possible, between today and Monday, for the Secretary of State for Social Security to be made to understand Labour Members' deep feelings on the issue? I hope that he already recognises those feelings and that, on Monday, concessions will be offered that enable us to support the Government in the Lobby.

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend has a record on those issues that no Conservative Member can match; he has been as consistent in his concern about benefits for people with disabilities under the current Government as he was under the previous Government. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is highly conscious of people's anxiety that we get the balance right, and that our proposals effectively support people with disabilities where that support is required and assist them to a greater degree of independence where that is possible and practicable. I shall certainly draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the concern that my hon. Friend expresses.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate to get to the bottom of the issue of war widows pensions? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) questioned the Prime Minister on that matter and the Prime Minister's answer was, to say the least, obfuscatory. He failed to confirm that the review of the matter had been carried out, as promised in response to a question asked last year by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The Prime Minister then had the gall to tell the House that, whether or not a review had taken place, the matter could not dealt with because there was not enough money.
It strikes many as odd that a Government who can afford to spend several hundred million pounds on something as frivolous as the dome cannot find the money for something as serious as war widows pensions. We must have a debate to get to the bottom of the issue. It is obvious that questioning the Prime Minister on a Wednesday is not enough, because we do not get any

answers from him, so we need a debate to ensure that the matter can be properly dealt with by the House, and not by the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of shooting himself in the foot, for if we did have a debate, one of the first questions everyone would want answered is why the Conservative party did nothing for 18 years, but now want us to do something in 18 months.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect all those fine words from several of our colleagues about sweeping away the cobwebs of precedent? is it true that researchers working on her behalf have been looking at the Crimean war, the Zulu wars, the Boer war and the first world war in an effort to scratch up precedents as to why there should not be a debate on a substantive motion in time of war, and why we should instead have a debate on the Adjournment of the House? Is there not a case for a substantive motion, which could be amended—for example, one that focused on the issue of depleted uranium?
Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, the answer to Question 1—a substantive question on the Order Paper—was unintelligible? That was why I asked to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment. A subsequent study of Hansard reveals that the answer was indeed unintelligible. Therefore, should there not be some opportunity for a proper explanation of why a civilised society drops anti-personnel cluster bombs in the middle of the city of Nis and on other cities?
Finally, may we have some answer to the specific question that I put properly to the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday? The right hon. Lady did not say what would be done about the Danube or who would pay for cleaning it up; nor did she say who would pay the bill, which might be as much as $40 billion, for the eventual restoration of Kosovo and Serbia—now a wasteland.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, with his usual parliamentary skill, has succeeded in asking me about five different questions, which stretch across the responsibilities of a number of Government Departments. There will be a debate—although focusing on Kosovo—next week when I am sure that he and others will seek to raise some of those issues, but I am sure that he will also appreciate that the range of matters, such as the pollution of the Danube, is very wide.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday did make it plain that the United Kingdom does not use, did not use and is not using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans. My hon. Friend then referred to other munitions, some of which we know have been used by various NATO forces.
My hon. Friend's first question related to precedent. I cannot tell him whether those who looked into the matter for me studied what happened during the Crimean war, because I did not ask them, but I can tell him that the research information that was made available to me specifically went back as far as the second world war. It indicated that "successive generations" have taken the


view that, once British troops are engaged in conflict, the House discusses such matters on the Adjournment, not on a substantive motion.

Mr. Dalyell: Not at Suez.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, the motion that was tabled in the context of Suez was debated, as I understand it, before our troops were committed and engaged. I am not aware of any precedent of a substantive motion being tabled when British troops were at risk.
I understand of course the argument that these matters should be reconsidered from time to time, and they have been. I understand of course hon. Members' wish to make their views known, although I have not observed that they have any difficulty in doing so. However, it remains the case that the precedent—it seems to me, for very sound reasons—is that as long as Members are not barred, as they are not, from expressing whatever view they wish to hold, in a free society, the House, as a House, has chosen not to debate a substantive motion when British troops are actually engaged in conflict. I believe that to be right.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I believe that there is a need for a debate on the war widows pension for various reasons. The reasoning that the Prime Minister used in his response to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was wholly different from that which he used in his response to me. It is inadequate to talk about what the Conservatives did. The Prime Minister made a promise to the House that he would do something about the matter, and a year later he has done nothing about it.
At a time when our troops are engaged in dangerous action, our support for war widows should be unequivocal. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to take a serious look at the issue, to stop trying to score political points, and to honour the Prime Minister's pledge.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not trying to score political points; the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly is. We had a conflict in the Gulf when the Conservatives were in office. Indeed, we had a conflict in the Falklands when the Conservatives were in office. It smacks of hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman to purport to make a great fuss in the House about the fact that, after two years, the Government have not done something which Conservative Governments did not do in 18 years.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I associate myself with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but my question is on a different point.
My right hon. Friend will recollect that I drew to her attention, quoting another precedent, the fact that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs had not met since 1978, and she was kind enough to say that she would review that matter. I understand that a proposal to recall that Standing Committee in some new form is before the Select Committee on Modernisation, and was referred to in a debate on Tuesday by the Under-Secretary

of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), as being part of the Government's constitutional reform programme. May I ask my right hon. Friend when she expects that it will be possible for that Committee to be recalled in some new form? She is well aware that there is considerable anticipation of that event among Members of Parliament from the English regions.

Hon. Members: Where?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will have observed from the noises off, our proposal to look again at the issue of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has met with some question, and the matter continues to be under discussion. I personally have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, and I can assure him that the matter is not dead. We are considering the implications, and whether we can put forward proposals that attract a good deal of support and common ground. We will continue that consideration. I hope that it will not take too long, and that we will be able to put proposals to the House in the not too distant future.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is the Leader of the House aware that the high commission for South Africa has found it necessary to set up a special unit to deal with problems occasioned by the incompetence of the passport and immigration units? I do not believe that I am the only Member with constituents who are being oppressed by the inefficiency that results in passports being lost and applications mislaid. Nothing is being done to alleviate the distress caused to many people by sheer incompetence. After two years of the present Government, may we have an assurance that we will have a debate on the matter or, better still, a marked improvement in the service?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right—all hon. Members have had to deal with problems with the award and issuing of passports, as well as the handling of other immigration matters. Having had long experience of such matters, I can tell him that there is nothing new about the problems. He has clearly forgotten the time not long ago when a Home Office Minister had to admit that there were six months' worth of unopened applications for passports, never mind applications that were being dealt with. No one regrets that more than this Government, and no one is more determined than the Home Secretary to turn the matter round.

Mr. Rowe: When?

Mrs. Beckett: We inherited the problems from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. We are trying to resolve them as fast as we can.

Mr. Forth: Two years.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is a mere two years, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, as he was a Minister in the previous Government, that the problems have existed a lot longer than that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there would be no need for a debate on war widows pensions and war disablement
pensions, if only someone in high office would examine the matter and acknowledge the perversity, which should be remedied swiftly, in the application of disregard by a few local authorities?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have something in common, with all due respect to both of them: they are both mistaken. It is not a matter of public money and central Exchequer money. The vast majority of good local authorities offer a total disregard, but that is grossly unfair to the war widows and war disablement pensioners who live in a few local authorities that do not give a disregard.
The remedy is in our hands. At an early legislative opportunity we could put it right and ensure that there is parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom for the beneficiaries of those pensions. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the matter again? If they do, they will see that we should not get dug into a trench about it, but that we should remedy it at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of campaigning on the matter, and is familiar with all the details. I understand his point: it is often a matter for local discretion. I sympathise with the passion with which he expressed his views. However, we are presented with a dilemma. In general terms, with whatever degree of sincerity and effectiveness, hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise the right of local authorities to exercise a substantial degree of discretion in the decisions that they make about the use of their resources.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, some local authorities have chosen not to make such a decision, and as a result the balance is wrong. I can assure him that the matter is kept under review. I will draw his further observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Secretary of State in the relevant Department. I cannot give him an undertaking, though, that a policy change is likely to follow speedily, or that I can find time for an early debate.

Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put some pressure on Education Ministers to make a statement to the House on student tuition fees? One can understand the possible outrage in England if there was a change in Scotland and tuition fees were abolished. That would create an unfairness, because English students would have to pay and students at Scottish universities would not.
Last week I talked to the vice-chancellor of Bournemouth university, where enrolment is an associated issue. If people think that they will not have to pay fees in Scotland, but will have to pay in England, many English universities will be disadvantaged in terms of recruitment and running courses.

Mrs. Beckett: I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and

Employment will certainly keep the House informed on those matters. The hon. Gentleman is leaping a little ahead of himself in his assumptions, but no doubt time will tell.

Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend may recall the meningitis tragedy in Rotherham over Christmas and the new year: there were seven cases in nine days, and two students from a school in my constituency and one of their friends died from c-type meningitis. Can she find time for an early debate so that we can discuss recent reports that three new vaccines have completed their clinical trials, and the need for the Government to pull out all the stops in their own approval process so that we can at last begin, to protect our children and young people from this deadly disease?

Mrs. Beckett: I recall the tragic events to which my hon. Friend refers and know how hard he and his colleagues worked to bring them to the attention of the House and to support those who were affected. I have seen reports of the potential of the new vaccines, but I must admit that I had not fully taken on board my hon. Friend's point that they are at such an advanced stage that they are now eligible for Government approval.
My hon. Friend will be as conscious as I am of how often such press reports are over-optimistic in their assumptions about the time that such approvals take. However, I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will wish to act with dispatch if that is possible.

Mr. Tim Collins: May we find time next week for an urgent debate or statement on Government policy towards the British insurance industry following the devastating job losses announced on Monday by Axa Insurance? Is the Leader of the House aware that, for the small rural town of Kendal in my constituency, that announcement represents not only the complete loss of our largest single employer, but a doubling of local unemployment and the removal of £19 million from the local economy? Will she consult her Cabinet colleagues to see whether any urgent Government assistance can be provided to my constituents at this very sad time for our area?

Mrs. Beckett: Everyone in the House understands and sympathises with hon. Members and their constituents who find themselves in such circumstances because of the loss of a large number of jobs. I am aware of the scale and the impact of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his colleagues do everything that they can to introduce the right kind of support and assistance to those on job search. I will certainly draw his remarks to their attention.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on safety and health so that the House might have an opportunity to debate an investigative report into the operation of the Capper pass smelting plant run by Rio Tinto? The report has been prepared by Towells solicitors and its senior solicitor, Mr. David Russell. It shows clearly that the community around Capper pass has been contaminated by arsenic, heavy metals and


radioactive materials and that its residents are suffering from cancer and leukaemia as a result. The report concludes that the operation of the plant has been a disaster for the community.

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly very sorry to learn of the portent of the report to which my hon. Friend refers and the concerns that that must raise for his constituents and those of other hon. Members. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but he will be conscious that I have announced the date of the pre-recess debate and will be aware of other opportunities for Members to raise matters on the Adjournment. He may be able to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I intend to call all hon. Members who are rising, but I am disappointed to note that, rather than putting direct questions, hon. Members are making long statements. As a result, business questions are going on for far too long.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will call all hon. Members, but I ask them to be brisk. They should not make long statements; they should ask the questions that they want to ask, and let us get on with things.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on early-day motion 636?
[That this House expresses its alarm at the reported threat to organic farming in Britain posed by potential contamination from growing genetically-modified crops; notes the reports of the study commissioned by Government on organic farming and gene transfer from genetically-modified crops; further notes the Government's increased support for organic farming and the expanding consumer market in organic food; and calls on the Government to do everything in its power to protect this vital farming sector and the public's ability to choose organic food.]
The motion deals with organic farming and contamination from genetically modified organisms, and also notes the Government's increased support for organic farming. As my right hon. Friend will recall, the Prime Minister said yesterday that under the present Government there had been an eightfold increase in support for organic farming, and a fivefold increase in the amount of land being devoted to organic production. That is extremely welcome in my constituency, but there is concern about contamination from genetically modified organisms.

Mrs. Beckett: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are studying the matter very carefully. We will do as much as we can, with the assistance and support to which he has referred. I have no doubt that he will continue to keep us up to the mark.

Mr. Graham Brady: Can the right hon. Lady find time for an urgently needed debate on ward closures in the national health service,

with particular reference to this week's announcement of the decision to close two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital? The announcement was made following no public consultation whatever; it was made three days after local elections that were very closely fought; and the community health council is now seeking, possibly, to mount a challenge to it.
I understand from the chairman of the community health council that the chief executive of the trust made it clear that the closures were due to the need to find extra funds because of the Government's failure to finance the nurses' pay award. Given the circumstances, I suspect that we shall see more hospital closures around the country. It is vital for us to have a debate; may we have one soon?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for that special debate, but the hon. Gentleman can seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I advise him to remember when he does so that the Government did fully fund the pay award, which contrasts with the Conservative party's record on both the granting of awards and the funding of them. As for the notion that local authority elections in some way governed a decision made by a health authority, there is no relationship between the two. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that. Local authorities do not run hospitals.

Mr. Phil Hope: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on NHS waiting lists? That might be a more fruitful subject.
Despite the financial pressures, Kettering general hospital, which serves my constituents, has met its targets in regard to waiting lists. It was announced this week that waiting lists had fallen by nearly a quarter of a million since May 1998. During the debate for which I have asked, Labour Members might like to reflect on the fact that we are only 15,000 short of the pledge made in May 1997 to cut waiting lists overall by 100,000. I should particularly like to hear the Opposition's views on waiting lists and the national health service: I should like to know exactly what their policies are on public spending and private health care.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for a debate, which tempts me. He is entirely right: not only have waiting lists fallen substantially, but, as a result of tremendous achievements by health service staff, waiting times have as well. The Government clearly have a great deal to boast about.
I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend an extra debate, but he may have noticed that the Opposition have decided to debate these matters next week, and he may bear that in mind.

Mr. Howard Flight: In view of yesterday's particularly strident address to London by Commissioner Monti, will the Leader of the House please ask the Chancellor to make a full, clear and unequivocal statement about the Government's policy on the proposed European Union withholding tax?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear the Commissioner's statement, but "strident" does not sound like Commissioner Monti to me; he has always struck me as a remarkably quiet man.
There is no doubt—as the Chancellor has repeatedly made clear, and will go on making clear—that we are fighting hard to defend Britain's national interest, and will continue to do so.

Mr. John Bercow: The response of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was almost as risible as the Chancellor's response at Question Time.
Will the right hon. Lady reconsider, and arrange an early debate in Government time on the proposed withholding tax on savings income? Does she understand that such a debate would give the Chancellor an opportunity to declare unequivocally that he will veto—a word that he declines to use—any such proposed withholding tax, on which Mario Monti is insisting? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that no pathetic compromise whereby exchange of information between European Union member states is countenanced, or even whereby large-scale institutional investors are exempted, would be satisfactory to Conservative Members? We do not want this tax, which threatens 10,000 jobs including a number of my Buckingham constituents who work in the City. Say no, and veto.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in for Treasury Questions, although I know he normally is, but my understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a question on the matter and made the Government's position plain, as he has repeatedly. The Government are, of course, sympathetic to the aim of dealing with tax evasion and are prepared to enter into discussions on those matters, but we have made it absolutely plain that we do not support the imposition of such a tax; that we are very concerned about damage to the national interest; and that we will defend that interest. As for the notion of accepting a pathetic compromise, the Conservatives were the experts at that.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Would it be possible to arrange for an early debate on local government and the denial of democracy, so that I could raise the issue of what is going on in Preston council? At the beginning of the year, two Labour councillors defected from the controlling group and the Labour party lost overall control. A few days later, a Liberal Democrat defected to the Labour party, by which the Labour party regained control.
At the elections on Thursday, the result was no overall control. On the night of the count—indeed, at the count—a Liberal Democrat defected to the Labour party and the Labour party regained control. The next day, the same defector became an independent and a Liberal Democrat joined the Labour party.
All I can say is that, at 11 o'clock today, the state of play was that Preston council was under no overall control, but I am conscious that more than two hours have elapsed, so anything could have happened. Is it not a denial of democracy to the people of Preston that their wishes are being totally ignored while their elected representatives are playing political musical chairs?

Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman over the fact that, after all his campaigning, the

Conservatives did not succeed in taking control of Preston council. I am sure that he is terribly upset about that, but I fear that I cannot find time to debate it.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Leader of the House please make time for either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House and to brief us on this morning's reports in the paper that the joint Liberal-Labour Cabinet sub-committee appears to be taking forward policy on European defence? That is not only a discourtesy to the House, but very strange when NATO is attempting to carry out military action against Serbia. Can we please have a statement as soon as possible on that matter?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that there is any need for a statement. There is no dispute that NATO must remain the bedrock of our security. Nothing in the announcement about how we should pursue European defence co-operation is in any way distinct from what was said, for example, in the recent Washington summit declaration. In consequence, the House will be conscious that that is a reaffirmation of the importance of joint work on the matter.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Since the reality of the arrival of the new Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament has sunk in, many people in the border areas who live near me have asked what the role of Members of Parliament for constituencies in Wales and Scotland will be? May we have a debate on the three Rs: the role, responsibility and remuneration of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament now that so many of their tasks have been handed over to the Members of those new institutions?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was, but I think that his party had a debate on the matter—or some party had a debate on it—this week. I cannot offer to have another in the near future.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he is pondering the consequences of the electoral system that the Government have introduced in Scotland and in Wales. Does the Leader of the House think that she could find time next week for the Prime Minister—if he has completed his ruminations—to share his conclusions by explaining in a statement to the House what is fair, representative and democratic about a system that evidently is enabling the party that came first to abandon manifestos, shed commitments, carve up power and distribute ministerial posts not to the party that came second, or even to the party that came third, but to the party—the Liberal Democrats—that came a very poor fourth?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter—he has frequently aired them in the House—but perhaps he did not notice that, if it had not been for the system introduced, the Conservative party would not have had any representation in those bodies. Various conclusions could have been drawn from such an outcome.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady has announced another Opposition day for next


week. When considering future Opposition days, will she be able to take any action to ensure that those occasions are used for their proper purpose—to oppose the Government—and not to attack the official Opposition? Indeed, should not future Liberal Democrat Opposition days be in Government time, not Opposition time?

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly not prepared to give an undertaking that I shall find extra Government time for such debates. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feeling, it is a matter of private grief on which I feel disinclined to intrude.

Opposition Day

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

American Food Exports and European Trade Policy

Madam Speaker: We come now to the main business, and I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Chidgey: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the EU ban on hormonally-modified meat must end on Thursday 13th May 1999 under World Trade Organisation rules and that the USA is threatening massive retaliatory trade sanctions against member states unless this is adhered to; is concerned that the latest scientific evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of these and genetically-modified products, further undermining consumer confidence; deplores the failure of the EU and the USA to pursue agreed research criteria into the efficacy of introducing such products into the food chain, threatening established World Trade Organisation agreements and ignoring the impact on global biodiversity in the long term; and urges the Government to recognise its responsibilities at the forthcoming Millennium Round and ensure that food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance to the economies of developing countries are integral to negotiations on the liberalisation of trade.
Today is the day on which, under a World Trade Organisation judgment, Europe must either lift its ban on imports from America of hormonally modified beef or face massive retaliation in the form of trade sanctions. This morning's news has been that the Americans intend to press for sanctions against the European Union. Let us make no mistake about it: if the billion-dollar package of trade sanctions threatened by America starts to hit British exporters, the so-called banana war will seem to have been little more than a skirmish.
The trade war over hormonally modified beef is just a sideshow, however, compared with trade disputes looming over milk products from dairy cattle subjected to the hormone additive bovine somatotropin—or BST—and the proliferation of genetically modified crops and food products.
Unless the world's two major trading blocs—the United States of America and the European Union—start to take seriously their international responsibilities for sustainable trade liberalistion and the protection of global diversity, the trade war could go nuclear. We must not underestimate the seriousness of the issues—which affect consumer confidence in the food on supermarket shelves and the risk of cancer from the milk that we drink, and threaten the diversity of plants and wildlife in our countryside and the economic survival of tens of millions of subsistence farmers in the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? He said that the trade war would go nuclear. Does he really mean that?

Mr. Chidgey: I am using a figure of speech to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. A few weeks


ago, there was great debate and concern about the banana trade war, but this issue is massively more serious. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Britain is in a unique position to take a world lead in formulating new guidelines, forging new international agreements, and linking trade liberalisation with the protection of biodiversity and the support required in developing economies.
The Government claim the credit for the United States and European Union transatlantic economic partnership agreement, which was set up while the United Kingdom held the presidency of the EU. The Government claim to be leading EU policy from the heart of Europe. Considering the apathy that is oozing from the European Commission on issues relating to trade in modified food, Britain seems to be not so much at the heart of Europe as in Europe's back pocket. From their belligerent response, the American agrochemical giants seem to think that they have the Government in their corporate wallets. Until the Government set out clear policies and take a lead in resolving the conflicts and the concerns about international trade in genetically modified crops and hormonally modified meats and milk, as well as biodiversity and developing economies, the EU will continue to muddle along and the multinationals will use their muscle to dominate world markets.
The current hiatus over American beef imports is a case in point. It should be no surprise to anyone that the United States is threatening massive trade sanctions if the ban on beef with hormone additives is not lifted. The EU ban was introduced more than 10 years ago in the face of opposition from north America. Instead of putting its house in order and undertaking scientific research to justify the ban, the EU has marked time, dragging its heels while spinning out the Byzantine disputes procedure of the WTO. The EU was given 15 months by the WTO to conduct the additional scientific risk assessments. With only weeks to go before the deadline—today, 13 May—the best that the EU could do was produce an interim report on the 17 new studies that it found that it needed to prove its case. The upshot is that the EU is calling for a further extension of the WTO ruling until the end of this year, to complete its studies. Not surprisingly, the United States, Canada and Australia oppose any extension. The United States is threatening Europe with $1 billion of trade sanctions.
I do not know whether the situation is best described as a tragedy or a farce. The inept, laissez-faire actions of the EU are farcical. Should the massive trade sanctions threatened by America be imposed, it will be a tragedy for the hundreds of British firms whose livelihoods depend on exports to America.

Mr. David Drew: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the precautionary principle, delay is the best way forward. We do not know the harm that the products might cause. It is right to delay and look at how we could introduce them properly in the future.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I strongly support. My criticism is that the EU allowed the situation to drag on without investing resources in the necessary scientific research. With food,

public safety must come first. Europe has left itself with three options: to maintain the ban on imports and hope to be able to pay compensation to America and Canada through trade concessions rather than suffering sanctions; to transform the ban into a provisional one, which could be argued under WTO rules on the basis of the scientific evidence so far, although that would meet with a host of objections from the United States; or to lift the ban on imports and introduce a labelling scheme to allow consumer choice.
Lifting the ban is clearly not an option. That would ignore the risks to the consumer that the latest round of scientific studies is attempting to quantify and would set a precedent for the wholesale importing of milk products laced with hormone additives, and of GM crops and their products. We need strong action from the EU and strong leadership from the Government to reach agreement on the trade dispute under existing WTO rules. The rules of engagement should be over measures of compensation, not retaliation.
The dispute over the import of beef with hormone additives is merely a forerunner of more far-reaching trade issues coming down the track to meet us. So far, the Government have been singularly silent on their policy regarding consumer choice, food safety, biodiversity and economic developments in developing countries. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will take the opportunity to set out clearly where the Government stand on the issues, what their policies are and what action they propose to take—for example, on the monitoring and management of GM crop cultivation. What action are the Government proposing to allay public fears over the safety of such food products?
With no clear lead from the Government, the public have voted with their feet—or, more accurately, with their wallets. Ten days ago, Unilever—the most powerful player in the global food industry—capitulated to consumer pressure. The company announced that it would stop using GM ingredients in what have become known as Frankenstein food products. Over the following week, just about every other major food company withdrew support for GM food ingredients, removing them from their shelves. Just about the only support left for the products is from the bioscience companies—Monsanto et al—and the Government. The Government have failed to read the public mood, to show leadership and to gain the people's trust as an independent guardian of food safety.

Ms Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have failed to do anything on these issues. Could he explain what the proposals for the Food Standards Agency and the proposals on the labelling of GM foods are, if not the Government taking a lead and stating their view?

Mr. Chidgey: I am sure that the hon. Lady can look forward to an opportunity to develop her points later in the debate. However, it is my understanding that those measures have been recognised as totally inadequate, and certainly have not restored consumer confidence. If they had, why would the food producers have withdrawn the products from their shelves?

Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey: No, I have given way once and I have made my point. No doubt the hon. Lady will have an


opportunity in due course to expand her thoughts and expose herself to interventions to test the validity of her arguments.
Not a day goes by without more horror headlines in the popular press, including warnings that GM foods could cause untreatable strains of killer diseases, such as meningitis. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) may laugh, but I wonder if she laughs to her constituents when they come to her surgeries with their concerns. This is a serious issue, and these are the stories being carried by the popular press. It is the role of the Government to address them.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The hon. Gentleman has just linked GM foods with meningitis because the popular press issued such a statement. That was a totally and utterly fabricated story.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw?

Mr. Chidgey: It is not for me to withdraw a comment on a report from another source.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Mr. Chidgey: If I may, I wish to continue without the sedentary interventions from the Minister for Energy and Industry, who will have an opportunity to respond in due course.
I wish to address the valid point that was made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I accept. The point that I am trying to make is that, without a clear lead from the Government, such stories gather momentum—they become the issues that the public read and believe. I am looking to the Government to act to squash such stories in advance, rather than letting matters drift.
We not only have scare stories in the press, but warnings in a leaked report from the Government's own advisers that the contamination of organic crops will be inevitable if GM crops are grown on a commercial scale, leaving organic farmers facing ruin. I suspect that that is not a scare story—it is more likely to be the truth.
All the while, the bioscience companies are angrily protesting the safety of their products. However, the Minister for the Environment has admitted his concern that 12 of the 16 members of the committee advising the Government on GM products have links with the food industry. It is clear that if public concerns over the safety of GM and hormonally modified products are to be allayed, scientific research and advice must be independent and transparent. I am asking the Government to set an example by putting their own house in order first. Will they take the lead by pressing for the WTO international advisory panels to be staffed by independent scientists, and for their deliberations and research to be made public?
That must surely be the first step towards a proper understanding of the benefits and the dangers from GM and hormonally altered food and towards allaying public concerns that are being stoked up by the tabloids into something verging on panic. We need a public policy

framework to ensure that public concerns are met before commercialisation takes place and that, once it has gone ahead, the technology is used responsibly.
We believe that a public policy framework should adopt a precautionary approach—I make that point to the hon. Member for Northampton, North—and that lack of scientific evidence to quantify risks should not be a reason for permitting the release of a GM product. The reverse should apply.
Central to the framework should be a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. We must allow time for current Government-funded research projects on the long-term environmental and health effects of commercial growing to be completed. How else can there be a full and informed debate on the issues, addressing public concerns?
Consumers must be given a clear choice about the purchase of GM products. Labelling regulations must be straightforward, to ensure that any GM ingredient is clearly identified. To prevent abuse, it should be mandatory to segregate GM crops at source. To give the regulations teeth, there should be a statutory legal liability, without time limit, on producers of GM products, for any adverse health or environmental effects.
The motion is concerned not only with the WTO ruling that the EU ban on hormonally modified beef must end today and with the need to manage and monitor GM products to restore consumer confidence. It goes to the heart of the matter—the competing interests of the WTO and the agencies concerned with international biodiversity agreements. That is a competition that the WTO invariably wins.
The WTO is one of the most effective and best-developed of all agencies involved in international relations. It has had major success in breaking down international trade barriers, but in pursuit of its purist trade liberalisation objectives, it is able, by the legal power of its rules, to subordinate the biodiversity protocols developed by the other agencies. In short, the power of the WTO rules gives open season to multinational companies whose commercial interests far outweigh any concerns for the environment or for the communities in which they operate.
It would be naive to presume that the bioscience giants are acting as global philanthropists. Their prime concern is, understandably, to maximise the dividends returned to their shareholders. Having invested billions of dollars in biotechnological research and development, their priority is to develop markets for their products in the developing as well as the industrial world.
It is in the poorer countries, where statutory controls are less well-defined and often—let us face it—less robustly enforced, that the risks are greatest. According to some projections, within three years, more GM crops will be planted in the southern than the northern hemisphere—crops that will still be banned in the United Kingdom.
Only this week, Christian Aid published its study on genetic engineering and farming. The report, "Selling Suicide", makes chilling reading. It argues that introducing GM crops to the world's poorest countries could lead to famine rather than feeding the 800 million people who go hungry every day.
Currently, 80 per cent. of crops in developing countries are from saved seed, but the 10 firms that control 85 per cent. of the agrochemical industry worldwide have


already taken out patents for seeds with terminator genes in 77 countries and are busily applying for patents for naturally occurring indigenous species. As a result, it will be illegal for subsistence farmers to save seeds from traditional varieties, in the time-honoured practice. They will be forced instead to buy suicide seeds with terminator genes and then buy and buy again year after year.
Christian Aid has raised the spectre that
GM crops are creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine. A food supply based on too few varieties of patented crops is the worst option for food security".
By contrast, research in India shows that land reform and simple irrigation can boost crops by up to 50 per cent. That compares with increases of only 10 per cent. from GM crops.
It is clear that while the WTO rules concentrate only on the liberalisation of trade, to the exclusion of concerns for biodiversity and the environment, the commercial interests of the bioscience multinationals will hold sway. The WTO must be reformed to accommodate and recognise biodiversity protocols, multinational environmental agreements and an understanding of genetically modified organisms. The Government have the opportunity through the European Union to argue for reform when the WTO millennium round of negotiations starts in the autumn. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that the Government intend to grasp that opportunity.
The motion before the House covers a wide range of issues related to trading policy between the United States of America and Europe over GM and hormonally modified foods. I have tried to set out the key concerns not only of the House but of the public at large. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government will take a lead in resolving the beef ban crisis and press for reforms in the EU to shake officials out of their apathy; what the Government's policy is on GM foods and crop production; and whether they accept the need for a five-year moratorium on commercial growing. What are the Government's objectives for the millennium round? Do they include reform of the WTO as I have set out?
For too long, the Government have listened to the slick voices of commercial interests. It is time that they listened to the voice of the public and the growing concerns of the international community. It is time that they showed some leadership.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the importance of open markets between the EU and the US, notes that in general the trade relationship is a good one; acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Government in seeking a solution to the banana disputes in a way that is World Trade Organisation compatible and is helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas; welcomes the Government's commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism; welcomes the Government's commitment to consider sustainable development issues in its approach to trade issues as well as the interest of developing countries; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999.'.
I know that it is not fashionable to read out the detail of a Government amendment to make sure that people are clear about what it says, but in the light of the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), I am tempted to do so and to urge him to vote for it. It gives him some of the assurances that he seeks.
We recognise
the importance of open markets between the EU and the US".
I would have thought that Liberals were in favour of open markets. We also note that in general—I will spell out how—our trade relationship with the US is successful and good. We have worked to find a way through the banana dispute, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in a way that was
helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas".
The amendment also expresses our
commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism".
We also take into account sustainable development, including biodiversity, in our approach to trade issues, as well as the interest of developing countries, as my colleagues throughout Government Departments have demonstrated. What is more, we certainly intend to grasp the opportunity late in the year to support comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Seattle.

Mr. Chidgey: I make this point in all seriousness. The Minister will have heard my comment about concerns over the recognition of biodiversity protocols within the WTO rulings. Will he give a specific assurance that the Government intend to embrace that and press for recognition?

Mr. Battle: We are pressing for the inclusion of environmental concerns on the agenda. As I make progress I shall state in detail how.
I found some parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech uncharacteristic of him. He used extravagant, headline-chasing language which was not all that helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is not in the Chamber now, referred to it. It is not helpful to talk of trade wars going nuclear. The hon. Gentleman said that that was a metaphor, but I class it as extreme hyperbole with a myopic focus.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of GMOs, but they are not a trade issue with America.

Mr. Chidgey: They will be.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman says that they will be, but I hope that he is not trying to talk up a problem. We believe that we should try to resolve disputes patiently and build an international trading arrangement that enables growth while respecting people and the environment. It is not necessarily what has been called by Lester Thuron a zero-sum game, and it ought not to be.
I accept that a few trade disputes exist; they centre on agriculture and food matters. By and large over the past 200 years, disagreements between Europe and the United States of America have been the exceptions to the rule.


Since the 18th century, there have been only a handful of intense disputes, and that includes the Boston tea party. Creating the impression that there is a trade war does not conform to the facts.
I shall give the House some figures, beginning with the EU's main exports to the US. Road vehicle exports in that direction total about 16.4 billion euros, with no disputes. Power-generating equipment exports are worth 9.5 billion euros, with no disputes. Specialist machinery exports are worth 8.9 billion euros, with no disputes. Other categories include electrical machinery, general machinery and organic chemicals, none of which has aroused a dispute.
European Union imports from the US include vehicles, office machines, and electrical and power-generating machinery, and are worth many billions of euros. However, EU agriculture exports to the US amount to only 2.8 billion euros, while EU imports from the US total 4.3 billion euros. Those figures show that trade in agriculture amounts to only a tiny fragment of the overall trade. By and large, there are no disputes in EU-US trade in the vast majority of goods. It is worth getting the matter in perspective.

Mr. James Gray: I want to pick up the Minister on a detail, about which I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House. He said that trade in electronic instruments was not the subject of dispute, but he will know that there is a trade ban on the import from America of electrothermic tea and coffee makers. Perhaps he would like to correct what he said.

Mr. Battle: I accept that there is a knock-on effect from the dispute about agriculture but, by and large, trade between the EU and America has gone along peacefully, calmly and without problems for generations. Although real and serious disputes exist, we should keep them in proportion.
The vast majority of trade and investment between the EU and the US takes place without difficulty. The relatively few disagreements that exist, although important, should not be allowed to discolour the nature of the relationship.

Mr. A. J. Beith: That may be so, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that the US seems to have an uncanny knack of lighting on products that are the staple industries of small communities. The cashmere industry in the borders is an obvious example, but there are others. It is almost as if the US has rather better intelligence about which communities are most vulnerable to import tariffs than about the location of Chinese embassies.

Mr. Battle: Some of the headlines that have appeared—for example, suggesting that the US plans to "punish" British companies—are not accurate, as the secondary list of trade goods will not be available for a few days. I shall return to that matter in greater detail later, and suggest how it can be tackled, but there are bound to be occasional frictions in what is a substantial and complex trade relationship. I do not underestimate the problem, but the figures speak for themselves.
The EU and the US are the two biggest economies in the world, accounting for 54 per cent. of world income. Even excluding trade within the European Union, together

they account for 38 per cent. of world exports, and 39 per cent. of world imports. In 1997, EU goods exports to the US were worth $160 billion, while US goods exports to the EU came to $156 billion. The US is easily the EU's most important external export market, accounting for about 20 per cent. of exports.
The trade figures are impressive, and the investment figures are too. In 1997, direct investment flows from the US to the EU amounted to about $24 billion. The US is the most important source of external investment into the EU, accounting for more than 50 per cent. of the total. Again in 1997, EU investment flows to the US came to $42 billion, with the US accounting for more than 40 per cent. of total EU direct investment overseas. I give those figures to demonstrate the perspective of our trade relationship, to keep that substantial relationship in focus and to show that the present disputes are far from totally undermining the relationship.
Bilateral relationships are not the only reason why the European Union and the United States of America matter in the world economy. They are the twin pillars of the world trade system, and they are co-operating to advance shared interests across the whole system. We must bear in mind the joint impact of the two trading partners on every part of the world. For example, we should consider the effect of the banana dispute on smaller nations—the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that rely so much on the export of bananas to the EU.
I appreciate that other hon. Members have worked in other capacities during their lives. I have spent some of mine working on EU policies for third-world countries under the agreements of the Lomé convention, and I know how difficult it is to carry through detailed negotiations to make sure that people receive justice in a complex world. The EU and the USA have had several formal opportunities to do so, not least through the twice-yearly summits, including the last on 18 December 1998. The next will be on 21 June, giving the opportunity for dialogue that can minimise trade frictions and build co-operation and confidence. There is scope to enhance that dialogue further for better management of disputes.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The motion refers to the United States of America, but there is a problem with another north American country. Canada intends to put excessive duties on various products in the near future, and one of them will be the sweet biscuits manufactured in my constituency. There is no justification for the imposition of such duties. Will my hon. Friend take the matter up urgently with the Canadian Government in the hope of achieving a settlement soon? It would be wrong if my constituents and Cans of Carlisle, a factory with a good reputation, were to suffer because of a trade war in which they have no involvement.

Mr. Battle: I agree with my hon. Friend. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the impact on our constituencies is vital and it is important to resolve these disputes. We hold summits and conversations with Canada around the same sort of issues as those we discuss with the USA relating to the WTO. We shall do our best to ensure that we develop conversations in order to avoid disputes that might discolour our wider relationship at a crucial time for world trade.

Ms Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the ceramics industry?


Particularly high tariffs are applied to catering china exported to north America. During his conversations, will he consider those extra tariffs and whether protectionism is being applied?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I did not appreciate that ceramics were on the list of items hit by the current disputes. I am more than happy to ask questions about the tariffs. Not all tariff barriers have fallen, and our purpose is to have the WTO develop a system to reduce tariff barriers to ensure fair trade everywhere. I shall be happy to take on board my hon. Friend's remarks and to raise the issue on her behalf.
The transatlantic economic partnership signed last May at the EU-USA summit in London enshrined an agreement for the two sides to develop an early warning system for potential disputes over agriculture, the environment, food safety and biotechnology, which have been sensitive issues recently. That agreement is vital if the EU and the USA are to avoid friction in the world trade arena, given the impact of their relationship on everyone else in the world economy.
Building open markets remains as vital and important today as it was when GATT was first founded. Of course, it is more than evident that protectionist pressures are growing. As the downturn in the global economy continues, it leads to such pressures, as we all know. That increases the urgency of the need to look for sensible ways in which to boost genuine, sustainable economic growth: that, not retreating behind protectionist barriers, is the key to the future.
We should at least thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for raising this subject for debate. It is a timely opportunity to say something about the need to support the comprehensive round of trade negotiations that we hope will be launched at the WTO ministerial conference in Seattle at the end of the year—I think that it will take place between 30 November and the early days of December.
Yes, we will positively support a comprehensive round at those talks. Seattle will be the third ministerial conference, so let us consider how we have got where we are. The first meeting in Singapore, in December 1996, put in place a work programme on new issues, such as investment, competition, procurement and trade facilitation. The second meeting in Geneva, in May last year, agreed the process for the preparation for Seattle.
We believe that a comprehensive round will allow all countries, including developing countries, to get an overall package to reflect their broader interests too. It will allow us to get arrangements on to a sound, commonly agreed and stable footing. That must be the objective and our Government will work towards that.
Some people have questioned the wisdom of pushing ahead with opening trade at a time of difficulty in the global economy. Trade was not the cause of the south-east Asian crisis and trade would not provide a complete solution, but it can help the world on the road to recovery, and it can help economic and social development.
Most recently, the Uruguay round brought a significant boost to world trade, to jobs and, therefore, to incomes. One of the key lessons of history is that the protectionist response to the global crisis in the 1930s made matters

much worse—it led to a protectionist backlash. There are some signs of growing pressures now, but it is essential that we keep pushing forward the momentum for opening markets and developing open trade policies throughout the globe. That is why the United Kingdom and the European Union have pledged to resist protectionism and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Eastleigh might suggest, to secure that new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
A huge number of subjects are of particular importance to the UK in those negotiations: the need for further tariff reductions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred; reducing barriers to trade—for example, unnecessary blockages, such as technical regulations; opening up Government procurement markets in third countries; simplifying import and export procedures; seeking substantial reductions in support and protection for agriculture; deepening and broadening the opening of trading services; establishing an open rules-based framework for international investment; clarifying the interaction between environmental and trade policies; and tackling trade and competition issues. That is a huge agenda and we are keen to press ahead with it.
At the same time, we are also conscious that we are trying to build. I point out to the Liberal Democrats at this time of new politics, when we are working towards a consensus, that trying to achieve that consensus around the table of the WTO is not so easy. Not all the members support a comprehensive round, as I am sure the hon. Member for Eastleigh acknowledges. Many more want to focus on particular market access, rather than the new overall rules. Others stress the need to stick only to those negotiations to which we are already committed—that is, in agriculture and services—and will not shift from there.
Since we have referred to the American position, President Clinton recently signalled support in his state of the union address for a new round. That was a very welcome statement. He said:
I issue a call to the nations of the world to join the US in a new round of global negotiations to expand exports of services, of manufactures, and, most of all, farm products.
We should assent to that aim to try to build together a round that will open up markets internationally and fairly. It is too early to say what sort of package will emerge from the ministerial conference this year. Discussions in Geneva so far have been developing the agenda to get the context right for detailed negotiations.
It is probably fair to say that the new issues, including the new work on the environment, are likely to be the most difficult in the new round. We accept that. Some developing countries believe that those issues are not yet ready for substantive negotiation. While we need to be realistic about what is achievable in the circumstances, we see value in the inclusion of environmental issues on the agenda. Clearly, there will be much focus on agriculture which, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, is important for developing countries, too.
Concerns have been expressed in Geneva about the implementation of existing agreements. Greater and more coherent focus will be needed on technical assistance and capacity building. That is not something only for the WTO; the United Nations conference on trade and development, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank all have parts to play. Decisions in the WTO must be taken by consensus. There is every sign that


developing countries will articulate a clear agenda of their interests, including issues relating to implementation, anti-dumping and open markets in, for example, textiles as well as in agriculture. They will not be reduced to being silent observers. The United Kingdom is doing all that it can to encourage their active participation in detailed negotiations.
We are clear that free trade has never meant, and should not mean, a free-for-all. There is a crucial difference. There is plenty of scope for reflecting concerns about health, social questions and the environment, but a system of international rules must have objective reference points. That is precisely why we need to rely on independent scientific justification, which is crucial. My experience has been that people are resistant to independent scientific advice as well. When they get it, if they do not like it, they refuse to believe it. That is part of the problem of perception.
Sustainable development is crucial. Protecting the environment and maintaining an open, non-discriminatory, equitable multilateral trading system are essential to achieving the objective of sustainable development. There are many effective, internationally recognised measures that aim to protect the global environment. Of course, much more remains to be done, but progress has been made in the past 20 years, with several multilateral environmental agreements with which we can work. Opening trade will help to ensure that resources are used more efficiently, and generate the wealth necessary for sustainable development and environmental improvement. It will also enable the spread of new environmental technologies that will help to tackle the pollution problems that we have inherited. Cleaner technologies will provide the jobs and industries of the future globally.
All Governments must consider their trade and environmental policies together. I cover the industry brief in government and I am determined not to see industry set against the environment as if they are irremediably at odds and mutually exclusive for ever. They can be fitted together, and the best companies recognise that, build environmental practice into their business, and see it as beneficial and profitable to have a sustainable agenda. The two policies can fuse together. If we are to deliver sustainable development internationally, we need to build it into trade relations as well.
Governments have a duty to balance the objectives of protecting the environment and upholding an agreed, multilateral trading system, whether we are negotiating in trade or environmental forums. It is for parties to both new and existing agreements to ensure, individually and collectively, that they do not sign up to conflicting, mutually exclusive requirements. That is the challenge.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal in more detail with some of the points on agriculture and food raised by the Member for Eastleigh. The European Union ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place for more than 10 years. In 1998, the WTO found that the ban was inconsistent with its rules because it did not follow from a properly conducted risk assessment. The EU was given a period, which, coincidentally, expires today, to comply with the ruling.
A helpful article in this morning's Financial Times stated:

US trade officials said yesterday they were determined to exercise their rights in the WTO to retaliate, but were prepared to continue discussing with the EU proposals for a negotiated settlement.
I take heart from that. The article also stated that
the scale of the possible sanctions was likely to be scaled down and that the measures were unlikely to take effect before early July, leaving another two months in which to seek a settlement of the dispute.
It continued:
the EU ban to US beef exporters, originally set at $900m, to be cut to between $100m and $300m. That figure could be lowered still further.
In a way, it is fair for the hon. Member for Eastleigh to paint the worst picture and to suggest that there are £1 billion of trade sanctions around the corner. However, we are not yet in that position; negotiations can continue. Furthermore, the US Government have reacted by pointing out that the characterisation of the situation outlined to the European Parliament by the Commission's Vice President, Leon Brittan, was useful and appropriate. I think that that puts matters into context, because some alarmist press comments were made by the Commission, which may explain some of the tone of the current commentary. I should be more interested in trying to work towards a sensible settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Drew: Given my hon. Friend's previous portfolio, can he clarify the Government's position on the ban? Have they carried out an independent scientific investigation into the safety of hormones in beef?

Mr. Battle: The UK was one of the few countries that pressed for labelling to give consumers an option—that would make matters much clearer. I shall respond in detail to my hon. Friend's point later in my speech.
We understand from Washington that there will be an announcement—perhaps tomorrow—formally expressing disappointment that the EU has not complied with the WTO requirement to lift the ban, and stating an intention to exercise the right to retaliate under the WTO. The US will need to apply to the WTO in Geneva for authorisation to retaliate, but it is not clear exactly when it will do so. Canada is likely to take similar action—that relates to a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The EU will then seek arbitration on the amount of retaliation due, which will delay authorisation until mid-July and may well reduce the overall amount. We shall not see the detailed list of retaliation for about 10 days, but the British position is widely recognised in the United States, as is the fact that we have played a helpful role in the matter. We hope that further negotiations can be undertaken to de-escalate the current problem.

Mr. Chidgey: The Minister has mentioned twice that negotiations are being pursued on retaliation. I press him to tell the House whether the Government's view is that we should seek a solution based on compensation rather than one based on retaliation.

Mr. Battle: That is precisely the position that Sir Leon Brittan took at the Commission; he is negotiating on that basis and I hope that that will prove to be a helpful step in the interim.
The WTO rules require that trade measures put in place to protect human, animal and plant health must have a scientific basis. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Governments can and do apply restrictions to protect their consumers, but they must be in line with international standards or justified by a risk assessment when they are more stringent than international standards. Obviously, if those rules were not in place, countries could simply impose restrictions—ostensibly on the grounds of consumer protection—but without any scientific back-up whatever. In reality, they would simply be protecting their own interests.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister tell the House on what basis British beef was rejected from the US in the early 1980s, before the BSE crisis?

Mr. Battle: I am tempted to say that if I were allowed another half hour to speak, I would go through the history of the previous Conservative Administration on BSE, but I think that I should be ruled out of order. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that, when we came into Government, I was not allowed to go through all the details—other than what was in the press and in Hansard—of what was done by the previous Administration. However, I should love to spend my life in the Library digging through those murky papers to find out what happened. To the hon. Lady, I say simply that in the case of beef hormones, as in other cases, we must recognise the importance of sticking to scientific principles, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out.
Protection of the consumer, and the health and safety of people and the environment are of paramount concern to the Government—they are our starting point. We have always opposed the EU ban on beef hormones on the grounds that it is not justified by scientific analysis, but if genuinely fresh scientific evidence—not simply recycling of previous claims—were to emerge, we would reconsider the case for the ban. As the EU continues to carry out a new series of risk assessments, we should continue to engage in serious dialogue with the United States and Canada. We are encouraging the US to discuss compensation, as an alternative to retaliation, and labelling options, in which we led the way.

Mr. Gray: On the question of scientific evidence on the safety of hormones, how can Minister argue that no precautionary principle is in play and that we must allow the stuff because it appears to be all right, when the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has banned beef on the bone, which has been shown to pose a one in 2 billion risk of any form of infection? Beef hormones are a heck of a lot more dangerous than beef on the bone.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he should check the evidence. Let me read to him the US Government's reaction to recent developments, in which they challenge the evidence that has emerged in the past few days on the ground that it is merely a recycling of previous claims. It states:

From what our scientists have seen of DGXXIV's summary report so far, the summary does not have any new scientific data on which to base its claims that the hormones in question may be harmful. In fact, the data cited in the summary seems to be the same as that already reviewed by numerous scientists, including the Joint Experts Committee on Food Additives (JECS), two previous groups of scientists commissioned by the EU and five scientific experts who provided their advice to the WTO beef hormones panels.
We should occasionally remember that there are damn good scientists in the United States of America and that we cannot accuse the US of scientific indifference. There are going to be arguments about the science, so we have to do our best to obtain independent evidence. Notwithstanding all that, we are one of the few countries calling for labelling. Supermarkets are pulling GMOs and other products off their shelves in response to consumer pressure, rather than to detailed scientific evidence; therefore, our argument is that, if products containing beef hormones were labelled, consumers would be able make their own judgment.

Mr. Gray: American scientists would say that, wouldn't they? How can the Minister so lightly dismiss the many scientists who say that there is no possible link between beef on the bone and new-variant CJD? How can the Government ban beef on the bone and simultaneously permit the import of hormone-treated beef? That is the contrast I want the Minister to address.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman implies that, because they are American, the scientists must be biased and willing to jeopardise their professional and scientific integrity, but I shall not respond in kind. I know that, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will respond in detail on the question of beef on the bone.
Our primary duty in respect of GMOs is to protect people and the environment, which is why, at EU and national level, we have a comprehensive framework in place to regulate and advise on biotechnology and to assess new products rigorously before they are approved for use. No product is allowed on to the market unless and until it goes through safety assessments. Those stringent assessments afford an extremely high level of consumer protection, so it would not be right for the UK or the EU to impose a unilateral ban on products that pass through those processes. However, if fresh scientific evidence on the safety of any GM product were to come to light, of course we would consider whether a ban was justified.

Dr. Peter Brand: I am interested in the Minister's reiteration of the need for fresh scientific evidence. We have many committees of scientists reviewing the scientific evidence available, but will he or his colleague, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, tell the House what work we are initiating to produce fresh evidence? So far, most of the evidence comes from manufacturers of somatotropins, who clearly have an interest in maintaining the existing verdict in favour of their product.

Mr. Battle: It is not fair to say that all or even most of the scientific evidence comes from the companies. For some time, I have had the privilege of being responsible for science, which covers work on the environment and work within the EU such as the framework programme, whereby scientists in universities and institutions


throughout Europe, including the UK, develop expertise in biotechnology. I know that the work is not necessarily funded by biotechnology companies or any of the other companies mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. All the scientists carry out their work with integrity and I respect that.
My reason for using the word "fresh" is that, often, reports of a few comments or summaries by a researcher appear somewhat prematurely, before peer review and before proper publication in the usual form of authorised scientific papers. That prematurely delivered information is often recycled information which has been gleaned from other people's papers and re-presented—a practice which, in the days when I did research, would not have been accepted as research, because it involved no originality. We are looking for originality—that is what I mean by "fresh". We encourage scientists to explore developments in biotechnology and ensure that they are safe. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can spell out, in detail, the work that we have initiated. In addition, the House should recognise that, through the science budget, we fund some of that work.
I emphasise that, although the United States has expressed some concern about the European regulatory system because of the time it can take to grant approval for a new product, there is no trade dispute in respect of GMOs between the United States and us. The US also recognises that consumers need to be able to make an informed choice, which is why we label products containing GM ingredients.
Let me end on the general significance of trade disputes in the EU-US trade relationship. I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh wanted to get the expression "American food imperialism" on the Order Paper, but encountered problems in the Table Office.

Mr. Chidgey: Nonsence.

Mr. Battle: I would suggest that, economically speaking, the term "mercantilism" might apply better to the problems that he has raised, but I, too, defer to the Table Office's judgment on the use of language. However, we must remember that, if we constantly heighten the language, we make diplomacy harder. We should look for common points of contact on which we can build a world trade system that enables the vast majority of the substantial trade and investment flows to proceed fairly between us.
Disputes are rare and, without wanting to minimise their individual importance, I have to say that there is a danger that if we over-emphasise them, we risk discolouring the overall relationship and jeopardising the future. It is possible for trading partners to resolve differences if there is a willingness to work patiently towards practical solutions. It is all the more important to do that when the two trading partners are the European Union and the United States, not only because of the massive and dynamic bilateral trading relationship that exists between us, but because of the impact of that relationship on the development of the world trading system as a whole.
We have a good trading relationship with the United States of America—one that has existed since the 18th century. We should carefully, sensibly and patiently

work on developing that relationship as a dynamic and fair economic model for the whole world in the 21st century. I believe that that can be achieved, if we have the will to do so.

Mr. Christopher Chope: We welcome the opportunity to debate United Kingdom trade policy and the World Trade Organisation, and we agree with many of the constructive sentiments expressed by the Minister. We deplore the woolly wording of the Liberal Democrat motion, and some of the scaremongering and irresponsible statements by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), which disclosed some of the muddled thinking that we have come to expect of the Liberal Democrats. I have read the motion on the Order Paper for the second half of this afternoon, and if this is supposed to be an example of how the Liberal Democrats hold the Executive to account, it carries about as much punch as a bowl of overcooked noodles.
When the Minister said that the original wording of the motion made reference to American food imperialism, the hon. Member for Eastleigh said that he thought that nonsense. I was in the House this time last week, when the Leader of the House announced that this afternoon there was to be
a debate entitled 'American Food Imperialism and European Trade Policy'."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1089.]
I presume that that title was not invented by the Leader of the House, but emanated from the Liberal Democrats.
If the references to American food imperialism were meant to be the soundbite that would motivate plenty of people to vote for the Liberal Democrats in my constituency last Thursday, which was polling day, it manifestly failed, because the Conservatives were returned in 36 of the 44 district council seats, gaining no fewer than 13 seats from the Liberal Democrats and reducing their number in my constituency to a mere five.
Conservative Members recognise and support the importance of the World Trade Organisation as a body committed to promoting global free trade and the reduction of trade barriers. We, as a global trading nation, have more to lose from protectionism and trade barriers than does any other member of the European Union. I think it fair to say that some of our European partners are instinctively more protectionist than we are, and given attitudes to British beef exports, too many European Union countries have shown a willingness to appease protectionist lobby groups rather than defend the virtues of open markets, sound science and the leadership of the World Trade Organisation.
We last debated this subject on 22 March 1999, before the World Trade Organisation's April ruling on the banana regime. During that debate, I and several other hon. Members asked the Minister a series of questions about what would happen if the World Trade Organisation endorsed the United States' trade sanctions against the EU for failure to comply with the WTO rulings on bananas. We did not receive any answers, and we now realise why. It is obvious from what has happened since that the Government had failed to ensure that the European Union drew up prudent contingency plans. The consequence is that the legally authorised WTO sanctions, amounting to $131 million a year, are now in place, and several United Kingdom niche businesses are suffering very seriously as a result.
What action are the Government taking? What is the European Union doing? If ever there was an issue that demanded immediate answers from the Government, it would be this one. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats did not even mention that in their long-winded motion.
On 29 April 1999, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking on what date he expected the European Union to introduce a banana regime that was in compliance with the ruling of the World Trade Organisation. By 11 May, following a holding reply, I received the answer. It is a matter of great regret to Opposition Members that, on an issue of such sensitivity, it took the Secretary of State the best part of a fortnight to reply to such a question. The reply, from the Minister for Trade, said:
It is unclear how quickly the European Union can amend the banana regime to bring it into compliance with the ruling of the World Trade Organisation. The Council has asked the Commission to provide proposals by the end of May. However, the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament are likely to delay their approval of a new regime until at least September. In the meantime, we are pressing the Commission to find an interim arrangement which could be agreed quickly and which would displace US retaliation against EU industries."—[Official Report, 11 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 84-5.]
What a farce; what a state of affairs. Anyone would think from that reply that the World Trade Organisation ruling or the date of the European elections came as bolts from the blue. All along, the European Union approach has been one of indecision, prevarication and delay—of hoping that the problem would go away. It did not go away, and when the European Union was confronted with the decision and the authorisation of the World Trade Organisation, it gave all the appearance of having made no arrangements to deal with it. It is now claiming the European elections, the chaos in the European Commission and various other factors as explanations for not addressing the issue with greater urgency.
When the Conservatives were in government and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), was an Opposition Member, Secretaries of State were several times found by the courts to be acting unlawfully. The hon. Gentleman was very quick to say how appalling that was, and to say that the Government should immediately comply with those rulings. That is a perfectly legitimate line to take; compliance with the rule of law is fundamental to any regime that commands respect.
The WTO has made its ruling and the European Union is saying, "We shall comply, but we are not quite sure when." In the meantime, sanctions against innocent firms in the European Union are biting. This is not an academic debating point. As we speak, the sanctions are costing British jobs and successful British businesses. So far, the Government have given all the appearance of being pretty indifferent to the plight of those businesses.
On 11 May 1999 the Minister for Trade gave a written answer to my question, tabled on 29 April 1999, containing his estimate of the number of jobs put at risk by the trade sanctions of the United States authorised by the World Trade Organisation:
In terms of the historical levels of exports to the US in each sector, it is not possible to say what the overall impact on British jobs might be. Much depends on how long the retaliatory measures

remain in place, the ability of affected businesses to find alternative customers for their products, the extent to which orders have been brought forward before these measures took effect and local market conditions."—[Official Report, 11 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 85.]
That may well be correct, but it ignores the fact that, as the Minister knows, many niche firms very much depend on their export trade to the United States, and they have lost business which they cannot replace in other markets.
One such firm, to which I drew attention in oral questions last week, is called Beamglow. It had invested heavily in the US market—about £2.5 million. It is quite a small business, employing only 100 people. About 25 per cent. of its turnover is with the United States, and it has lost all that business as a result of the sanctions. The firm has communicated with Ministers, but has had no satisfactory response.
When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in oral questions last week, he made it seem as though it was everyone else's problem but his. He said that
the real solution is to resolve the trade disputes.
Fine.
The Government are committed to achieving that long-term solution to the problems.
Fine.
The solution to the problems that companies such as Beamglow face lies in the Government using our best efforts to ensure that the trade disputes with the United States are resolved
fine—
and that free trade and commerce are able to flourish."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1072-3.]
But what will happen in the meantime? By the time the dispute is resolved—the Minister for Trade estimates that that will be no earlier than September, and some people say that it might drag on beyond the turn of the year—Beamglow will have been obliged to lay off a very significant number of its employees.
Beamglow is not the only firm affected. Carrs of Carlisle, a much larger firm, and Woods of Windsor, a niche business with which the Minister for Energy and Industry will be familiar, are suffering very seriously as a result of the sanctions. Those firms are asking, "What will the Government do to help us? We are the innocent victims of the European Union's failure to respond positively and quickly to a ruling of the World Trade Organisation."

Mr. Gray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that despite the Government's general lack of concern about the industries that he describes, they have been extremely concerned about one particular area? In the politically sensitive and delicate area of the Scottish borders in the run-up to the parliamentary elections last week, the Government have gone out of their way to help the cashmere industry. Would not Beamglow and other firms wish that they were in that area?
Talking of lack of concern, has my hon. Friend noticed that there are now only two hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches? Although this is the most crucial debate in their parliamentary month, only two of them have stayed to listen to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
We as much as anyone supported the Government initiative to help the cashmere industry. The threat of the sanctions being applied prior to authorisation by the World Trade Organisation put the cashmere industry in particular difficulty. The Government offered up to £40 million in guarantee payments.
Since the ruling went against the European Union, however, the Government have done nothing. No doubt through the diplomacy of the Prime Minister in conversation with the President of the United States, the Government managed to exempt cashmere from the list of products that would be the subject of 100 per cent. tariff—[interruption.] I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Rooker: I asked the hon. Gentleman why he kept talking about cashmere, when he knew that it was not on the list.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Cashmere was originally on the list, but it has now been taken off. Before the issue was resolved in favour of the cashmere industry, the Government had agreed to give up to £40 million in assistance. They are not prepared to put a similar sum or any compensation regime in place for equally innocent and deserving victims of the dispute.

Mr. Battle: Two things—first, the cashmere industry is not located only in Scotland. I come from Yorkshire, and the industry exists also in Bradford, a city next to mine. Secondly, there was a particular difficulty with cashmere. If you knew anything about the textile industry, you would know when the buying season was in America—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Battle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) knew anything about the textile industry, he would know when the buying season was. That was the reason for the extreme difficulty at the time. We worked to resolve the dispute, to get cashmere textiles and other items off the list, and to reach a sensible solution within the EU. The hon. Gentleman's comments come rich from him. Thousands of jobs in manufacturing went in my constituency. The answer that I got when I was in opposition was that that was due to world recession and I should not worry about it.

Mr. Chope: I am gobsmacked by the Minister's attitude. I would have hoped for considerably more sympathy for the innocent victims of a trade dispute in which the European Union was found guilty by the World Trade Organisation. In his speech the Minister spoke about the desirability of introducing a compensation regime in favour of the United States. Why are not the Government prepared to introduce a compensation regime for British firms that are the innocent victims of the European Union's failure to deal with the issue?

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The mock anger displayed by the Minister will cause deep frustration

among those in west midlands manufacturing who have difficulty understanding why other regions of the United Kingdom should receive easement and compensation, and why firms manufacturing such important products as bath preparations, with a total export value of £7.2 million, should still be on the list of products that are not relieved. Midland Cosmetics in the west midlands has £2 million of orders on hold because of the Government's failure to provide the same sort of compensation as they have provided in other parts of the country.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If the Minister wishes to intervene to answer the point, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Battle: We have been trying to get the list down and to ensure that companies are not jeopardised by sanctions. That is the whole point. To avoid further sanctions, we are encouraging negotiations. Of course there will be financial penalties, but we do not want more companies to pay them. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Government should buy and store all the products of the companies affected? What sensible proposals does she have, other than direct grant and Government intervention? In the case of cashmere, it was not grant; it was a loan system to back firms up during the short-term buying season.

Mr. Chope: I shall allow my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to make her own speech. In response to the challenge from the Minister, I would say that if the Government of which he is a senior member had anticipated the ruling of the World Trade Organisation, they would have had a proper contingency plan in place, which would have been a compliant regime to take effect immediately.
If the Government and the EU had done that, no penalties would have been imposed on firms such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend. Those firms are now suffering as a result of the 100 per cent. tariff barrier. They are losing business and some of them will be threatened with bankruptcy. In any event, many will have to shed a large number of jobs.
The Government should have anticipated the situation, and even now they should be getting on and ensuring that a compliant regime is introduced. [Interruption.] Instead, we get much delayed ministerial replies to our questions. The Government shrug their shoulders and say, "There is nothing we can do. We are waiting for the European parliamentary elections."

Mr. Battle: We are doing things—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must not keep intervening from a sedentary position.

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Mr. Chope: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does the Government no good to display such a lack of contrition and humility? The Minister sits there barking and shouting in response to a legitimate claim on the part of


Conservative Members in the interests of hard-pressed companies. That tells the whole story about the Government' s attitude to those industries, those businesses and the people who work in them. I invite my hon. Friend to suggest to the Minister that he calm himself a little, and display a little more humility and compassion about the damage that is being done to those hard-pressed companies.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He gives wise advice to the Government. They get hysterical and say that they are doing all they can, when it is apparent that they are not. If they were doing everything that they could, they would have sorted out the problem already. They are relaxed about the problem and say that it may go on beyond September till the end of the year.
The Government were quick to help the cashmere industry and rather slow to help firms such as those that we have mentioned. We suspect that the Government are rather indifferent because a number of those firms are situated in the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament—for example, Woods of Windsor, and Beamglow, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That suspicion, which several of my right hon. and hon. Friends share, as do some of the people who work for such firms, is given credence by the extraordinary attitude of the Minister, who seems totally unconcerned about the plight of those businesses.

Mr. Battle: Name a Conservative Member of Parliament in Bradford.

Mr. Chope: I cannot name a Conservative Member of Parliament in Bradford, but I can name an increasing number of prominent Conservative councillors there.
The Minister needs to take the issue much more seriously than he has hitherto. I hope that he will introduce a compensation package for firms that are the innocent victims of the banana dispute. As members of the EU, we obviously take our share of the responsibility, but the EU' s failure to comply with WTO rules has meant that people are losing their jobs and are suffering financially in those businesses. All that is happening is that the Government are shrugging their shoulders, which is not good enough.

Mr. Rooker: We have been discussing bananas for 20 minutes.

Mr. Chope: I do not know how long we have been discussing that issue, but I know that we are discussing real jobs and real businesses—often family businesses that have been built up over generations and have entered and successfully competed in a very difficult United States market. They are finding that all that investment and effort are being completely destroyed as a result of the Government's behaviour and the failure of the Government and the EU to address this issue sensibly. As far as I am concerned, this subject is worthy of an Adjournment debate in its own right.
The good news is that we are making progress in some other areas. During our debate on 22 March, I raised the issue of hushkits and the growing dispute over them. The

steam seems to have been taken out of it as a result of sensible co-operation and discussion between the EU and the United States. However, Emma Bonino recently said that, whatever the scientific position, there is no question of the beef ban ever being lifted—which is provocative.

Mr. Battle: Who is she?

Mr. Chope: Emma Bonino is one of the Commissioners—a temporary Commissioner who is about to lose her job, I think, although we are not sure about that. She said on behalf of the EU that there is no question of the beef ban ever being lifted. That sort of comment causes a number of people to think that provoking the United States into a trade war is on the agenda of some members of the EU, to assist them in their own protectionist objectives. I hope that that is not correct.
There is talk of temporary solutions. The report in the Financial Times, to which the Minister referred, gives us hope that the hormone-treated beef issue will not now result in any direct trade sanctions, at least until July, and we hope that it will be resolved before then.

Mr. Rooker: Now that the hon. Gentleman has got on to the issue of hormone-treated beef, I invite him to confirm that the current position of the Conservative party is exactly the same as that which it took in government. It has changed its policy on genetic modification since then. We have continued the policy on hormone-treated beef because it is based on the science. I should like confirmation that the position remains the same as far as he is concerned.

Mr. Chope: As the Minister knows, I was not a member of the previous Government; I was not even a Member of the House, so I will not get drawn into a discussion about that. I would support what Ministers have been saying about the importance of sound science, which is absolutely fundamental. If we are not committed to supporting sound science, any country in the world will be able to say, "We don't want your products because we've got some people who say that they do not really like them." That would be quite at odds with any principle of free trade, which Conservative Members promote very strongly.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to labour the point, but I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government until 1992. The ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place for 10 years and he was a member of the Government when that ban was introduced on behalf of the EU. I am asking my question simply to avoid any doubt and because of the Conservative party's change of policy on genetic modification.
We take a different view from the rest of the EU on hormone-treated beef, but we have operated the policy as good members of the EU. We want to operate on the basis of sound science, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether the Conservative party's position remains the same as when it was in government—that is all.

Mr. Chope: If there was a change in Conservative party policy, the Minister would soon hear about it. I have set out the position as I understand it to be and I have nothing to add on that particular subject.
We are pleased that it looks as though some of the heat has been taken out of the hormone-treated beef issue. However, if we find in July that nothing much has been done to resolve the scientific issues and the United States has in the meantime drawn up a list of targeted firms—as the Minister has said, that might be announced in the next 10 days—I hope that the Government will not have allowed the EU to be as slack in preparing a contingency plan as it has been found to have been in respect of bananas. I condemn the EU and I condemn the Government for the part that they must have played or not have played in this; but let us learn something from the experience—if we are given a couple of months, we should draw up some sensible contingency plans.
Does the Minister think that the approach taken by the Government to hormone-treated beef—standing out from other members of the EU—will result in a differential regime for the imposition of sanctions? The Netherlands and Denmark publicly opposed the EU banana regime and the United States said that it would not introduce sanctions against them for what was effectively an EU decision. Have the Government had any intimation from the United States on whether that might be used as a precedent and on whether this country would be less vulnerable to sanctions than other member states because of the line that we are taking in the EU on hormone-treated beef?
The Minister said that we had spent 20 minutes talking about bananas; I do not know whether it was as long as that, but this is an important debate and we welcome the opportunity to hold the Government to account. A more constructive way of doing that, which we on the Opposition Front Bench pursue, is tabling pertinent questions and asking the Government for answers, rather than tabling muddled motions, as the Liberal Democrats do, and trying to justify them in speeches that leave much to be desired. People want clear thinking brought to bear on these important issues, which affect our country, our trade and our prosperity.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I am delighted to take part in this debate on an interesting and important topic; the politics of food creates considerable interest, if not alarm, among the wider population on occasions. Conservative Members seem to be suffering from collective amnesia about their role in the evolution of various food policies, but I do not want to waste time on that. No doubt the result of the change in policy will be put around in a brown envelope, like most Conservative policies at present.
We approach the debate with some trepidation. It is easy to raise alarms and, to be a little critical, although I agree generally with what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, some of it was on the alarmist side. This is an emotive subject. People are understandably worried by any accusations about links between this and that, and what may seem to be a perfectly good way to improve choice and the quality of our food can lead to alarming statements being made in the press, if nothing else. Nevertheless, we must recognise that consumer choice, if not paramount, is very important in this context. What we are discussing is the essence of why we engage in trade. It is through specialisation that we are able to obtain the best products from various parts of the world, and we must try to avoid any action that would prevent that from happening.
A chord has been struck. I feel strongly about this, as, I think, do others on both sides of the House. People feel that they have been disempowered by the way in which globalisation has made the providers of food unaccountable, in the sense that decisions are made not through the natural—dare I say, national—process that most people want, but by unaccountable individuals in multinational companies, American agrochemical companies or other multinational companies in other parts of the world.
We are, in fact, particularly able to point the finger at American agrochemical multinationals. I make no apology for taking all possible opportunities to talk about genetically modified organisms. I hope that Ministers do not think that I will launch into a full-scale attack on them, but I do not think that we would be where we are today were it not for Monsanto's—in my view—dreadful and disastrous decision not to segregate soya, which has led to a lack of consumer confidence. Consumers feel that foodstuffs have been imposed on them.
I was glad to hear confirmation from Ministers that we are demanding consumer choice, as we always do. There should be segregation, and there should be effective labelling; but it is not an easy matter, because decisions are being made elsewhere. We are discussing an aspect of that today: we are discussing a further racheting up of the apparent ability to impose decisions from outside. I think that we are well within our rights to say what we feel about that. In this respect, I am thankful that we are part of the European Union, because we can make a much bigger impact as part of a group of nations than we could as an individual nation. Let us not fool ourselves: as an individual nation, we would find it much more difficult to restrain the multinationals from securing a global marketplace in which they can determine what is provided and at what price it is provided, and regulation can be undermined, if not circumvented.

Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman favour the commercial planting of genetically modified crops, or not?

Mr. Drew: My views may differ somewhat from those of the Government, but in terms of degree rather than perspective. I believe, at the moment, that the precautionary principle is such that the benefits of genetically modified organisms are not proven, although I see every reason to conduct more tests—for instance, by means of farm trials. The Government have upheld the view that we should not currently be allowing commercial exploitation—unlike the last Administration, who allowed more products through without the necessary monitoring and regulation, and without truly believing that people should have a choice. Labour Members will not take any lessons about licensing and regulations: we are doing things properly, and it is a pity that that did not happen before our election.
We understand that the international trading position presents another side of what most people are concerned about—their right to choose, to know what they are eating, to know that it is safe and wholesome and to know that they can obtain it in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. There is a very sad aspect of what has been happening. The debate provides me with an opportunity to say that, although we understand that the interests of different nations are likely to be paramount in


their decision making, we should all like to avoid disputes such as this if that is at all possible. We would not like it to be exaggerated, although that is always a danger in the lead-up to negotiations; but, more particularly, we do not want the matter to be subject to innuendo that could be taken out of context. That might lead to a much more serious situation.
Other hon. Members may, like me, have received a letter from the Food and Drink Federation stating that food and drink exports accounted for £732 million last year—slightly less than imports. I always think that those who cause problems by threatening retaliation may have more to lose than they stand to gain. Anyway, the letter listed the products that might be affected: beef, pork, poultry, tomatoes, onions, peaches, pears and, dare I say, chocolate. Such a degree of retaliation takes us on to the slippery slope leading to something that none of us wants—a full-scale trade war.
Everyone would lose out from such a trade war, but, as has been made clear by Conservative Members, those who would lose most are the smaller producers—the producers of specialist lines, who cannot diversify because their methods of production relate directly to their markets. We can only argue on behalf of producers, but, as we know from the banana controversy, the biggest loser is the third world. To an extent, we have been willing to fight alongside the third world to ensure that its countries have access to world markets. It is not right for large global companies, perhaps working through one Government or another, to be able to impose a different way in which products can reach the market if it is unfair, biased and clearly opposed to the greater access to the world market of third-world countries that most of us want.
That is linked to other issues, such as the multilateral agreement on investment. I was pleased to note that that had been kicked out initially; it may return in a different form, but I hope that its new form will enable us genuinely to believe that it is for the right purpose, and that investment streams will be made more accountable, rather than being driven by companies that are motivated by selfishness and are able to impose their will and influence the third world much more than is healthy.
We should improve the processes whereby we agree on the stabilisation of world trade. People may make suggestions about how we can learn from our mistakes. It has been alleged—I cannot confirm or deny the allegation—that, to an extent, the current problem has been caused by, in particular, the Americans, who have been testing World Trade Organisation processes to see how far the disputes mechanism can be pushed. If we take that allegation to its origins, we must ask who has been testing the process—and, again, we would tend to point the finger at some of the larger companies, which may feel that, if they get their way now, they may be given further opportunities in the future.
There is a lot to be played for. As the Government have said, we must cool this down. We must find a way of putting world trade back on track. If the dispute escalates, we shall all lose out, including those who are taking retaliatory action.
If I point the finger again at the European Union, I do so because some of the processes whereby agreements are reached are pretty Byzantine, and lacking in transparency.

Whether we agree with the science is one thing, but I think that we should be happier if the mechanism for agreements were clarified to some extent. We could then hold our heads high when talking to the Americans, Canadians or whoever and say, "We have done it by the book. We know what we are about. We have been clear with our own multinational companies about the way in which they can influence the processes that we are engaged in." As a result, world trade would, I hope, be in a stronger, more stable position and we would all be gainers.
Although Labour Members have some sympathy with some of the words and phrases in the Liberal Democrat motion, the only way forward is the Government's approach, which is to negotiate, to consult and genuinely to try to bring the parties together, whether nationally, or, more particularly, supranationally, to ensure that the people who would lose out more than anyone—small specialist producers, the third world and, eventually, the consumer—are protected. There is no future in a retaliatory regime, which could be the way that some countries, or some companies, would want us to go. We have to square that with consumers' demand for safety, which is paramount; their demand to know what they are eating, and whether it is GM food; and their demand that, if they do not wish to eat GM food, they do not have to. As a result, the world would be a better and, indeed, safer place.

Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to take part in what is an important debate and to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), although, having heard his thoughtful speech, I am not entirely clear about whether he agrees with Ministers' decision to allow the commercial growth of GM crops. Nor am I clear about whether he is in favour of the continuing import of hormone-improved beef. If he is, I wonder whether he has consulted the Gloucestershire National Farmers Union on the subject, and considered the damaging effect that it would have on beef farmers in his rural constituency.
Incidentally, the Labour party makes great play of the fact that it represents more rural constituencies than the Conservative party. That is statistical nonsense, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud, who does indeed have a rural constituency and should always be listened to on rural matters. I am certain that the Gloucestershire National Farmers Union will get in touch with him about his opinion on hormone-modified beef.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who accurately summed up Conservative Members' significant concerns about the imminent trade war, and made some good points about Liberal Democrat Members' general woolliness and lack of clarity. This is the most important day in the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary month, but, for most of the debate, far more Conservative than Liberal Democrat Members have been present. At one stage, only two Liberal Democrats were present, although, admittedly, there are a limited number of Liberal Democrat Members. The Liberal Democrats have raised a subject that has attracted few of their Members and I suggest that, the next time they secure an Opposition day debate, they think up a subject that actually attracts the attention of their Members and voters, rather than something that is of peripheral interest to them.
I am glad that one or two more Liberal Democrats have drifted into the Chamber. No doubt, seeing the name of a Conservative Member on the screens, they have come to find out a thing or two about the subject that they themselves proposed to discuss. We will no doubt hear more about that in the next debate, which, in the view of all Conservative Members, is a particular waste of time.
The lack of interest among the Liberal Democrats in the subject of the debate has been mirrored throughout England by their appalling results in last week's local elections.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I will in a moment, if I may just finish my train of thought.
I think, in particular, of constituents of mine in the town of Wootton Bassett. Until last week, they had a Liberal Democrat town councillor, district councillor and county councillor. They now have a Conservative-controlled town council, Conservative district councillors, Conservative county councillors, a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. That shows what the country thinks of the Liberal Democrats and today's debate shows why they think it.

Mr. Tyler: In the almost complete absence of all his Conservative colleagues, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to get up at all, but why does he think that his views on the local government elections have anything to do with genetic modification, unless he himself has been genetically modified, which may be possible?
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, in 1995, his party lost more than 2,000 seats. Therefore, to regain their 1995 position and to have had any hope of forming the Government again, his party should have won 2,000 seats last week, which it patently did not.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman addresses the House again, perhaps we can return to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Gray: You are, of course, right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has highlighted two things. First, he has not been here throughout the debate; he walked into the Chamber and thought to make a cheeky intervention. Secondly, he has not even read his motion, which has nothing to do with GM crops. The fact that he thinks that I should be talking about GM crops shows how little he knows about the debate.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber. He has already made one particularly inane intervention; I am not prepared to take any further interventions from him.

Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attended the opening speech in the debate and I listened

to much of the Minister's speech. I was called away on my parliamentary duties elsewhere. I should remind the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that I and my colleagues and I actually went to the WTO to discuss the matter long before his party woke up to the concerns that were being expressed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Gray: We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place.
We are not talking about GM crops. That is a peripheral issue. We are talking about the real possibility that the world and our nation face a very damaging trade war. It is a trade war that damages not the European Union, our Government or us in this place, but businesses throughout Britain. That is what we are talking about. Today, there has been much peripheral talk about all kinds of things, but we must concentrate on the possibility of a full-scale trade war, which represents a threat to global prosperity—and, my goodness, global prosperity already has enough to worry about with the cold wind coming from the far east and Russia. One thing that we do not need is a trade war across the Atlantic between, as the Minister correctly pointed out, two of the oldest trading friends in the book: the United States and United Kingdom. We have been trading partners for centuries. That has nearly always been the case: there have been a few little local difficulties such as the Boston tea party, which the Minister mentioned. Apart from that, we have always been the best of trading partners.
If there is an outcome to today's debate, it must be the reiteration of our determination to maintain those trade links across the Atlantic, and not to allow some of the current disputes to interfere with that. We must reiterate our determination that, where we see trade disputes on the horizon—for example, a dispute over air freight is definitely coming our way—rather than allowing them to develop into a gigantic trade war, we will find ways in which to smooth them over, to come to some agreement with our American partners as well as involving our European partners.
In that context, I find the history of the recent banana dispute worrying. The Labour Government go to great lengths to tell us of their strong links in Europe and with President Clinton. The Government had the presidency of the European Union when the banana dispute was breaking. As far as I am aware, the Government never even mentioned the dispute in any of their public announcements during their presidency. They certainly took no steps to do anything about it.
The Government wasted an opportunity during their presidency by not addressing the dispute. The net result is the $191 million worth of sanctions that the WTO has now allowed the United States to apply against the European Union. Of course, those sanctions have not been imposed on EU banana businesses but EU businesses in entirely unrelated trades and industries.
The suggestion that that came as a surprise to the Labour Government during their presidency is nonsense. We know that, for six years, the battle has rumbled backwards and forwards and that the EU has consistently failed to comply with GATT and WTO regulations. The EU has said, "No, no, no—the United States action was


unauthorised". Although the EU is probably technically right that the US took action before the WTO had authorised it, the facts remain that the dispute has continued for six years, that we saw it coming, and that the United Kingdom, in leading the EU, took absolutely no action to see it off. The Labour Government have to answer for that omission.
If the Government are so close to the European Union; have such good links with the WTO; and are leading in European matters, in WTO matters relating to the United States and in international affairs—although their recent lead in international affairs does not fill me with great confidence—they will have to tell us why they allowed bananas, of all things, to wreak the consequences described by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Although the banana dispute has been partly resolved, as current contracts have not yet expired, the dispute's effects will continue to be felt for at least another nine months.
Conservative Members have already alluded to the dispute's consequences. We know, for example, that the cashmere industry has been helped out. Far be it from me to use the dreadful expression "pork-barrelling" in the Chamber, but it seemed quite extraordinary that a Labour Government who were terribly concerned about the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections should go to such huge lengths to help out the border industries.
A moment or two ago, in justifying the action, the Minister said that cashmere products are manufactured also in Bradford. Perhaps he thinks that that justifies the Government's action. Fine; if they think that that makes it all right, I apologise for having cast any aspersions on the Minister. Nevertheless, it is particularly peculiar that the Government should have gone to such great lengths to help the cashmere industry—even if there is one in Bradford—but ignored other industries, about which I shall speak.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman's allegation was that the cashmere industry was helped in certain areas to damage the Conservatives' electoral prospects in the Scottish parliamentary elections. However, such a charge is manifestly untrue, as the industry is located beyond Scotland. I tried earlier to explain that there had to be intervention in the cashmere industry because—unlike in the other affected sectors—the sanctions were imposed right in the middle of that industry's buying week, which is a specific annual event.

Mr. Gray: The allegation was not that the Labour Government were helping Conservative areas—we all know that there are no Conservatives in the Scottish borders—but that the Government were very concerned about the outcome of the imminent Scottish general election. In retrospect, they were right to be so concerned. They went out of their way to help Scottish industries, but not English ones.
I should mention a few of the industries that will continue to be damaged by the US sanctions. They include the handbag industry; the uncoated felt paper industry—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh and think that those are only small industries, but other damaged

industries include those that manufacture folding cartons, boxes and cases of non-corrugated paper, and lithography. All those who make cardboard boxes, or any paper product, are being hurt, as are those who manufacture bed linen and other linen—of whom the Minister has made so light—lead-acid storage batteries, and electronic tea and coffee makers.
All those British industries are highly profitable and are composed largely of small businesses. Entrepreneurs have established those businesses, often exporting their products to the United States. Now—because the Government were unable to resolve the banana problem during their EU presidency—those businesses face bankruptcy, redundancies and other problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned Beamglow, which is a very good example of the type of company being affected by the sanctions. It is a family company, employing 100 staff, with a £6.5 million turnover. It has just opened a new New York office, at a cost of £250,000. It has also invested £2.5 million in new plant, specifically so that it might be able to export to the US. However—because of the muck-up over bananas—Beamglow is being denied the right to export to the US. People precisely like those at Beamglow are the ones who are being damaged by the trade war. They are exactly the type of people to whom the Labour Government have failed to pay any attention. Ministers went out of their way to look after cashmere, but what about Beamglow, in Cambridgeshire?

Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: Of course; I am happy to give way to my next-door neighbour.

Mr. Drew: Is my near neighbour suggesting that some of the American tariff policies are of recent origin? As he may know, traditionally, American policy has blocked foreign aerospace industries from entering the United States. The latest policy is therefore not new, but only more specific. We should lay the blame where it belongs: the Americans should not be imposing the sanctions.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that intervention— although it was wide of the mark. Beamglow, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the aerospace sector. The dispute to which the hon. Member for Stroud may have meant to refer is the one on air freight, which I foresaw. As the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly know, the Americans are currently claiming that it is reasonable that American air freight companies should be allowed to fly to the United Kingdom, offload freight and then go on to Europe— which the Americans believe is one entity— whereas British air freight companies may not go to America, offload and go on to another American airport. Therefore, America is not only proposing a form of protectionism for its own air freight industry, but arguing that we cannot contest it.
As I told the Minister a moment ago, the Government should not simply wait for the air freight dispute to come along and hit them in the face, but take action now to try to put it right. Ministers will say that they are taking action on it, but, as they know—although they have been ready to meet Federal Express, the largest American importer, and hold interesting talks on how it might be


accommodated—they have refused to meet the British Air Freight Transport Association. No meetings with Ministers have been possible, because they have been so busy talking to Federal Express.
The Government must not take that type of attitude to dealing with international trade. They must realise that various issues are just about to come along and whack them in the face. They should meet representatives of the British industry and the American industry and find a solution to the problem that favours neither one side nor the other. I suspect that Ministers are at least partly culpable in not foreseeing some of those trade disputes, which have the most damaging consequences.

Mr. Battle: Early-warning arrangements are now in place, and the Government played a part in their establishment.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and am glad that arrangements are in place. I very much hope that they work. This time next year, when we have another debate on trade disputes, I very much hope that it will be held in a spirit of cross-party congratulation on the arrangements.

Mr. Battle: I doubt it.

Mr. Gray: I hope also that no such trade disputes will have arisen. The Minister doubts it, but I doubt it, too. I fear that, in the next 12 months, it is unlikely that the Government will perform any better than they have in the past 12 months. But—who knows—this time next year, when we again debate the subject, we might be pleasantly surprised.
I should like briefly to deal with the central issue of the debate—hormone-treated beef—and whether we should allow it to become a huge problem. I should say first that I am speaking as a Back Bencher, and as an hon. Member representing a beef-producing area in Wiltshire. I have not discussed my remarks with my own Front-Bench spokesmen on agriculture and trade. I should not in any shape, size or form claim to be speaking for the Conservative party.
My own view on the issue of hormone-treated beef is a very plain. I find it curious that, of all the European Ministers discussing the matter, only one—the British Minister—took a different view on the issue. Only the British Minister chose to ignore the available scientific evidence on allowing imports from the United States of hormone-treated beef.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grins knowingly, as if he is about to tell me that he has no evidence that there is something wrong with hormone-treated beef. I shall quote to him from no less an institution than the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has produced a very learned paper on the subject of hormones and their dangers. In words very much of one syllable, the report says that POST is extremely concerned about the health effects of such hormones.
The report states that oestrogens generally are
linked with increased risk of endometrial and breast cancers in women and to reproductive disorders in men; they have also been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests.

Progesterone increases the incidence of ovarian, uterine and mammary tumours in experiments in laboratory animals.
Testosterone may be carcinogenic in humans, having been linked with prostatic tumours in men; it has also been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests.
That is pretty clear evidence that there may be a danger in humans eating hormone-treated beef. Regardless of that, there seems to be a reasonable presumption that there may be some dangers in eating hormone-treated beef. Compare that evidence with evidence from the Government's own scientific advisers on beef on the bone—which they have chosen to ban.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Gray: I shall, in a moment, give way on that specific point. Many scientists, quoted extensively in the paper, say that there may be health dangers associated with eating beef fed on hormones. The Government's scientific adviser went to some lengths to say that he thought that there was not much evidence of health risks from eating beef on the bone, but, like any scientist, he could not swear blind that there would never be any risk. Most scientists now reckon that there is a one in 2 billion chance of contracting a disease through eating beef on the bone. Whatever the Minister may be about to say about the POST note from which I quoted, the scientific evidence is clear that people are by no means convinced that eating hormonally modified beef is safe.

Mr. Battle: People may not be convinced, but we should read the full report, not quote selectively from it. The hon. Gentleman is quoting scientific evidence of health effects from the POST note. He stopped reading before the following paragraph:
While few question the academic credentials of the evidence cited by the EU, much of it refers to levels of exposure many times higher than those likely to be encountered via hormone residues in meat. The key question is whether similar effects occur at these lower levels of exposure. Here the EU's position on the risks posed by hormone residues in meat seems somewhat out of line with the views of other national and international bodies.
I do not have time in an intervention to read the following three columns that spell out the counter-evidence. The hon. Gentleman should give both sides.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for his further quotation from the POST note. Those who are interested will doubtless be able to look at it in the Library. My main point was not that it gave convincing evidence of a health risk. My goodness, if we knew for sure, as the Minister seems to suggest, that hormone-improved beef was definitely bad for human beings, no Government of any complexion in any country would ever allow it to be sold. At no stage have I suggested that it is definitely bad. All I am saying is that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology says that it might be dangerous and other scientists say that it might not be. There is a scientific debate about it. Almost nobody in their right mind—with the honourable exception of the Government—would suggest that beef on the bone was harmful, whereas many eminent scientists suggest that hormonally modified beef might be.
More importantly, British beef farmers are facing the worst time that they have ever had. They are unable to sell their beef overseas because of the ineptitude and


inadequacy of the Minister of State at MAFF. Our beef farmers cannot export perfectly healthy beef, but the Government are saying that we should allow the Americans to export beef that many scientists believe could be very damaging to human health. There is something wrong with that. On behalf of the beef farmers of north Wiltshire, I find that worrying and disturbing. I am sure that they will have some powerful comments to make in the aftermath of the debate.
Leaving aside the medical and scientific discussion, the Conservative party is wholeheartedly committed to free trade, in contrast with the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps the Labour party, given some of the comments that we have heard this afternoon. Freer trade in Britain means solving the disputes over beef and bananas. It means foreseeing disputes such as that over air freight. It means using influence in Brussels and Washington, not just talking about it, setting up a committee or putting out a press release. Too often, the Labour Government's approach to international problems is to do whatever will look good in the papers tomorrow. It is not about winning the battle of spin, but about addressing the difficult questions, not just in public, but behind the scenes. That requires careful, quiet diplomacy over long periods to solve disputes, not the headline-grabbing, "I'll have a go at them" approach to which the Government too often resort.
From what I have seen of the Government's priorities on the issue so far, they are more interested in currying favour with Mr. Clinton and now with Mr. Prodi than in pulling off the gloves and sticking up for British industry, British jobs and the British consumer.

Mr. Colin Breed: The motion and the Government amendment refer to the interests of the developing world. I should like to focus on that. Less-developed countries are just as vulnerable to the new biotechnology and to the way in which WTO rules will be interpreted. Genetically modified food has been heralded by many as an answer to famine and starvation in the developing world. It is said that enormous quantities of food from genetically modified crops could be produced in areas that are currently infertile. Apparently, drought-resistant crops could allow farmers in some of the poorest areas of the world to grow food to sustain themselves.
That is laudable and I am sure that we all wish that it were true. However, I am sure that many hon. Members agree that some GM crops come at a dangerously high price. First, GM food is produced by a relatively small number of multinational companies. Ten companies control around 85 per cent. of the global agrochemical market. Secondly, the so-called terminator or suicide seed technology involves a gene that makes seeds infertile. In a GM world, farmers could no longer store the seed produced by the previous season's crops, but would have to buy new seed each year. That is clearly to the advantage only of the seed producers and the companies that own the patents and will increase the costs to poor farmers in third-world countries. Thirdly, GM crops are designed mainly for the intensive farming prevalent in western agriculture, which is inappropriate for the delicately balanced ecosystems of less-developed countries.
One of the other so-called advantages claimed for GM food is that it will reduce the world's damaging over-reliance on pesticides, allowing pest-resistant crops to flourish. However, far from relieving agriculture of the need to pour a dangerous cocktail of chemicals on to the crops, genetic engineering is tailored to reinforce farmers' dependence on certain chemical herbicides and fertilisers. GM crops are designed to work in tandem with specified pesticides, having the pest-resistant gene as part of the process of genetic modification. When the field is sprayed, all the weeds will die, leaving only the crop. The farmers have to buy not only the seed, but also the relevant pesticide. For example, Monsanto crops will be resistant only with Monsanto pesticides. That probably comes as little surprise to any of us.
The proponents of GM food accuse those of us who may be more cautious of denying food to the hungry. However, there is a growing fear that the sated and wealthy are making money out of the hungry and poor, then threatening action through WTO rules to enforce the largely unproven and potentially dangerous science on unsuspecting third-world farmers. They argue that genetically engineered crops will feed the growing third-world population. However, this week's Christian Aid report on GM food and the developing world showed that to be a false and deeply misleading claim. There is already enough food to feed everybody in the world. According to the UN world food programme, there is one and a half times the amount required, but one seventh of the world's population—around 800 million people—still go hungry.
Our supermarket shelves are stacked high with exotic products of all shapes and sizes from all parts of the world. Certainly, there is no shortage of food in south-east Cornwall—or, I suspect, in any other constituency in the country. There seems to be no problem in bringing food from far-flung places to our supermarket shelves. Yet there seems to be a distinct problem the other way round.
In 1984, at the time of the Ethiopian famine, some of the prime agricultural land in the Horn of Africa was used to produce linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to Britain and other European nations as feed for livestock. That was clearly ridiculous and, as a result of the famine, the EU—including this country—pumped millions of pounds of aid back into Ethiopia.
The west has enough food to feed itself many times over. The problem is not quantity, or even quality, but distribution—getting the food that can be produced in ordinary circumstances to those who need it. Unfortunately, there appears to be very little profit in distribution, so few commercial concerns are interested and little interest is shown by Governments in tackling properly the problem of distribution.
The very fact that those poor countries cannot afford the food to feed themselves adequately will not be changed by the introduction of genetically modified crops. If anything, it will widen the gap between the well-fed haves and the hungry have-nots. The developed countries can afford expensive biotechnological crops in combination with equally complex pesticides, whereas the developing world simply cannot.
The Ethiopian representative to the bio-safety protocol negotiations, which were part of the convention on biological diversity, said:
There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy.


The biotechnology industry's claim that its research is motivated by a need to feed the hungry is clearly unsubstantiated. Few of the foods so far produced are likely to benefit poorer people in the developing world.
One of the main genetically engineered crops grown commercially in the United States is soya. Some 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the soya bean harvest and 60 per cent. of traded maize are consumed not by people but by livestock. The argument by multinationals in favour of GM foods—that they eliminate hunger—is simply wrong.
The answer to the problem of feeding the burgeoning world population is not GM foods, or increased fertiliser use. Green techniques can adequately cope with the increased demand. For instance, in southern Brazil, 250,000 farmers using green techniques doubled both maize and wheat yields, while 200,000 farmers in Kenya increased productivity by 50 per cent. However, in India, to increase the grain yield by four times since 1950, fertiliser use has had to increase more than 200 times over.
GM crops are being designed for western intensive farming techniques, and the impact on the delicately balanced environment of the scale of factory farming needed to justify GM crops is immense. For instance, Jules Pretty of Essex university cites evidence from 20 countries of 2 million households farming 5 million hectares in a more sustainable manner. They all use techniques that have stood the test of time, such as multi-cropping, reduced chemical input, local seed and using the knowledge, skill and experience of local farming. Those techniques are sustainable and suit the local environment.
The introduction of single GM crops would necessitate immediately the greater use of fertilisers and pesticides, damaging the delicately balanced local ecosystem. Many farmers in poorer countries will be encouraged to grow cash crops. That is happening already, with supermarkets contracting growers in third-world countries to grow vegetables such as carrots—using cheap labour and huge amounts of water—and encouraging them to use GM seed where there are no restrictions.
Those crops are not available or eaten by the indigenous population and contribute nothing to relieving hunger there. They only enable the foreign currency earned to pay the interest on the country's foreign debt, which is unsustainable, both environmentally and economically.
A combination of aggressive seed producers and the purchasing power of western supermarkets is forcing GM crops on to less-developed countries, causing potentially catastrophic damage. With ever-growing public apprehension, particularly in Europe, more attention will be given to those less-developed countries. All of this is being reinforced by so-called free trade obligations under WTO rules, which I believe serve more the greed of western commercial interests than balancing and promoting proper trade which is fair and environmentally sustainable.
It has been argued that genetic modification is merely an extension of selective breeding, something that has been used for thousands of years to influence which genes are passed between generations of plants and animals. However, the advent of GM crops is completely different. There is no longer a DNA river flowing and branching through geological time with steep banks confining each

species. GM crops are the bursting of those river banks, with such absurdities as tobacco modified with genes from the Chinese hamster. The DNA river is beginning to flood. Only prompt action and rigorous scientific testing can prevent as yet unknown damage occurring to the animals and plants of the world.
It is essential that future negotiations on the liberalisation of trade fully take into account food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance for the economies of less-developed countries, rather than promoting the interests of greedy commercial companies that use their dominance not only in their trading practices but through political lobbying of the worst kind. Developing countries must be taken into account in the WTO millennium round negotiations in discussions on matters of so-called free trade.
As this is Christian Aid week, it is an ideal opportunity to let people in some of the poorest developing countries take precedence, for once, over the agrochemical super-giants and commercial operations such as Monsanto.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely wrong that the Department for International Development is not represented on the Cabinet committee dealing with biotechnology? Should not the Government correct that omission?

Mr. Breed: I am sure that the Minister will take that on board.
It is clear that the WTO negotiations go wider than their original purpose of a few years ago. Unless the negotiations take into account the wider aspects of the way in which trade takes place—particularly between large, multinational companies—they will fail to understand what we will need to examine in future. Biodiversity, its affect on less-developed countries and the way in which some companies will use WTO rules to drive through their commercial interests will be the central features of what we need to tackle in the millennium round of negotiations.

Miss Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate, as I have taken a great interest for months in the looming trade war. I am bemused by what I gather will be the Labour party's campaign slogan for the forthcoming European elections. Labour is talking about "Leading in Europe." This debate has shown that the Labour Government have woefully missed an opportunity to lead from the front in the EU on this matter—in particular, on food safety and our relations with third-world countries.
I wish to make a personal comment about the next motion on the Order Paper. The House will know that I am still a part of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which is referred to in the motion. I have been called many things in my time, but I do not think that I have been called "complacent" before. Nor do I think that the word "antipathetic"—or, as the Spanish would say, "antipatico"—refers to me. I much prefer the word "sympathetic", or "simpatico."
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) took a lead in showing that Conservative Members are much more in sympathy with the businesses


in this country that are concerned about the Government's lack of leadership, especially in the banana debate, and failure to give any reassurance to the Caribbean countries concerned, which are members of the Commonwealth.
There is clearly an uneven playing field for our producers. I am deeply concerned because the Government appear to be all over the place on food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the fact that the Government readily banned the sale of beef on the bone, without conclusive scientific evidence, yet still allow in imported pork that we know comes from animals fed on meat and bonemeal. A complete assurance has been given to the British public that none of the meat produced and sold here is from such animals, but the imports continue, and that is deeply worrying. The imports also place our producers in an uncompetitive position.
The failure to lift by 15 June the ban on US beef produced with hormones means that further sanctions will have to be negotiated. There will be 100 per cent. import duties on a wide range of products, including pigmeat, poultry and tomatoes, corresponding to the estimated $500 million loss of earnings for the US cattle men. Have the Government considered the impact on UK producers of pigmeat, poultry and tomatoes, especially in the Channel Islands? What compensation might be offered?
I pay tribute to Sir Leon Brittan, who has led the negotiations in Brussels. The Minister was right to say that the European Union will rely on scientific evidence. That is being considered as we speak. If there is conclusive scientific evidence—which I believe there is—that hormone-produced beef is bad, I hope that the Government will show some leadership for once in Europe and move to ban the imports.
I would find it difficult to explain to both producers and consumers in the Vale of York that beef imports will be allowed in even though we know that there is conclusive evidence that the meat can be damaging to health. The motion refers specifically to food safety, but we must also consider what unfair competition there may be for beef producers. We do not have many in the Vale of York, but they will be very badly affected.
I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Plumb, who for the past few years has chaired the parliamentary assembly between the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the European Union, especially when it meets under the auspices of the European Parliament. We owe a great deal to that body for its efforts to bring the two sides together, especially in the banana debate.
The ACP agreements, through the first Lomé convention, considered sugar as a staple produce for many of the developing countries. We respect and admire the role that those countries play in the Commonwealth. Bananas are the only practical crop on which they can rely. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Canary Islands, within the European Union, produce the small, rather tastier and more delicate bananas that are preferred by the British consumer. I regret the fact that the Government have shown a distinct lack of leadership.
A wider trade war is looming. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred to the air freight agreement. It is most unhelpful that Ministers have found no time to meet the British companies involved. No

British or European Union carrier is given access to United States routes—known as cabotage—for either freight or passengers, or is allowed to buy more than 49 per cent. of shares. The Government should take the opportunity to consider the fly America policy, whereby any US Government official must by law fly only on an American carrier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the hushkits agreement. It was reached only on the basis of postponement for a year. There was a strong British interest at stake: we would have lost our Concorde flights to the US because the Americans refused to accept that their reconditioned aircraft are simply too noisy. Anyone living near or representing an airport with those noisy aircraft will understand the problem only too well.
There are problems with bananas, beef produced with hormones, genetically modified organisms, hushkits and air freight. I yield to no one in my support for free trade between the EU and third countries such as the US, and I regret the increasingly protectionist moves by the US Government in their economic relations with the EU.
I regret the fact that—contrary to the slogan that we will no doubt hear over the next three weeks, in the context of the European Parliament elections, that Labour is "leading in Europe"—there has been gross lack of leadership and the Government are reluctant to apply the right to ban hormone-produced beef, which is enshrined in law under article 36 of the original treaty of Rome.
I urge the Government to show the House, the country and our partners in the European Union some leadership.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I make no apology for the fact that we have, for the second time in a short period, introduced a trade debate in the House. That reflects our recognition of how much our manufacturing and agriculture depend on an open trading system and the rule of law in trade; our concern about the threat posed by the current cycle of retaliation—there have been two major disputes—to large parts of our economy, including vulnerable constituencies; and our belief that the Government have a role and responsibility in the matter, because of our country's bipartisan tradition of support for liberal trade and because the Government, who, like previous Governments, are close to the Americans, can bring more influence to bear on the disputes than other European countries.
The issue is important, as the Minister acknowledged, and we are glad to have the opportunity to debate it. We begin to part company with him on the seriousness of the problems. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) captured very well the exact nature of the threats that we face. The Minister was right to say that there has been some scaremongering. Some have cried wolf, and whenever a trade dispute breaks out, some people prophesy the imminent collapse of our trading systems. The Uruguay round went through two years of trauma, but eventually the disputes were resolved.
It is possible to put a positive gloss on what is happening, but I urge the Minister to accept that the problems are serious, for several reasons, one of which is the fact the European Union and the United States, for very different reasons, are both behaving irresponsibly. The European Union is, to some extent, dragging its feet.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) accurately chronicled the history of the dispute. The foot dragging was partly for administrative reasons involving the slowness of getting 15 countries into line. There is also a highly reprehensible unwillingness to accept the rules of the dispute settlement procedures. That is unforgivable. On the other side, the United States, instead of waiting to see how the rules of dispute settlement can be implemented, rush in unilaterally, threaten sanctions, raise the temperature and make the problems worse. So there is blame on both sides, but it is a serious problem.
There is a deeper issue here. The international trading system now has to cope with more difficult and irreconcilable problems than those that faced early generations of trade policy makers. In the past, disputes were about tariffs and quotas. We are now dealing with something much more subtle—with what happens when, in opening up the trading system, we run into national health, hygiene or technical regulations. We are familiar with that in the European Union. Quotas and tariffs disappeared long ago, and there is now a long-established practice of harmonisation and mutual recognition to get over the problems. At global level, we do not have that framework.
It is easy to understand where the World Trade Organisation is coming from and why it tends to take a sceptical view of health restrictions. The classic case was Japan. The Japanese argued for many years that they could not possibly have imported beef because Japanese stomachs and intestines worked in a different way from ours. It was never clear whether they believed that scientific nonsense, but it was sustained none the less for many years. That provided the background to the somewhat sceptical approach to health standards that is often taken. The real danger is that genuine concerns about health are not taken sufficiently seriously. We are now seeing a generation of genuine health problems that have to be dealt with much more sensitively through international trade negotiations.
The underlying principle of international trade agreements is that they must be based on sound science. The problem with that is that it is a slogan. The slogan is right, but science constantly evolves, there is no settled scientific consensus and scientists in different countries say different things. Genuine public anxiety may not always be scientifically based. That is our difficulty in responding to the real issues of trade policy and the World Trade Organisation has not come to terms it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) rightly sketched out how we could extract ourselves from the beef hormone dispute, but a succession of other disputes is coming. It suffices for the purposes of this debate to sketch out the principles for handling disputes. The first is one with which the Government should feel comfortable because they are setting up a Food Standards Agency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the architect of the agency. All major trading countries will have to have agencies independent of Government and the private sector to make credible scientific assessments.
A second principle is labelling. The Minister for Energy and Industry has sketched out the Government's commitment on labelling. It is surely a matter of fundamental principle that people should know what they are eating and make an informed decision about it. That may require a strict labelling regime. We have seen that,

in the case of GM food, that is not easy, but we must insist on it as a matter of principle. It is a principle that the Americans have so far resisted. So a combination of independent standards agencies, labelling—in some case, obligatory labelling, but often it can operate on a voluntary basis—and international agreement backed up by dispute settlement procedures is the basic ingredient for preventing disputes from getting out of control.
The Liberal Democrats have tried to press the environmental agenda over the years. One issue that is looming is the inability of the international system to enforce multilateral environmental agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has already referred to that. There is no reason why such enforcement should not be carried out within a set of multilateral trade rules. Many people who believe, as I do, in a liberal, open, free trade system believe that the WTO can adapt to the problem and build a set of safeguards into the rules without enormous difficulty. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed to the process and will take the lead in finding answers to the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to the problems posed by developing countries. In the past decade, there has been a big change in the way in which the developing countries see trade. Until the mid-1980s, many of them, especially the biggest such as China and India, maintained largely siege economies. It is now generally accepted that that was contrary to their interests. Many of them have now embarked on liberalisation, which is welcome from both their standpoint and ours. There are barriers to the continuation of that process, one of which is the fact that the western world is often highly hypocritical. We demand market access to developing countries, but we present serious barriers to their products, especially agricultural and manufacturing items. The developing countries then ask why they should comply with demands for, for example, social legislation that could be used as a barrier to their products.
The concern of developing countries that is more relevant to the debate is that many demands for access are driven by narrow commercial interests. What my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about GM foods needs repeating. It may well be that in the long term, GM seeds will be beneficial to a country such as India. I have an open mind about it. Certainly 30 years ago, the introduction of new agricultural technology transformed the economies and agriculture of the Indian sub-continent for the better. Perhaps the same thing will happen again. However, there is a crucial difference between then and now.
Thirty years ago, agricultural research was carried out independently. For example, research was done at the rice institute in the Philippines. That provided confidence for Governments and private farmers to introduce seeds on a voluntary basis. That process will not happen for GM technology if it is forced through by western Governments at the behest of some of their corporate clients. If developing countries are to be helped to maintain a broadly liberal approach to trade, which is in their interests, it will have to be done in a sensitive way. The way in which the United States is approaching the matter is not helpful.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the British Government have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead the international debate on trade policy. Britain has a


creditable record. Whatever our differences with the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) played a distinct and positive role in helping the Uruguay round to reach its conclusion. One of the unsung achievements of the late John Smith was that at a crucial stage in the Uruguay round, when he was Secretary of State for Trade, he pushed through key negotiating points that made it possible for the international agreement to be signed. We start from a broad consensus in Britain in favour of a liberal trading system. We now have an opportunity to address the issues of food safety and environmental standards in a way that is compatible with an open system.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best to respond on behalf of the Government to what has been an important debate. I have the biggest audience of the afternoon, but I am not sure whether that is out of interest in my reply or because people are getting their seats for the next debate, which is obviously much more important, between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party.

Mr. Gray: Tickets are being sold.

Mr. Rooker: I understand that that is the case.
First, on the central issues regarding aspects of trade, I wish to make it abundantly clear that the rules of the World Trade Organisation do not stop the United Kingdom—or any country—from protecting public health through trade measures, where necessary. However, covert protectionism—the theme of some speeches this afternoon—is not allowed. If measures to protect public health or the environment are to succeed, the arguments must be based on some firm science.
Secondly, the WTO rules allow countries to take a precautionary approach by adopting provisional measures where there is insufficient information, provided that a serious attempt is made to establish a more informed basis for action within a reasonable period. Those two points are crucial. They are the foundation of the policy and underpin our negotiations in the WTO.

Mr. Chidgey: Does the Minister agree, in the light of his second point, that insufficient information is one of the EU' s key failings over modified beef?

Mr. Rooker: Of course it is. I shall come to the three elements featured in the debate—beef treated with hormones, bananas and genetic modification.
I shall deal with the hormone problem first. The present dispute has lasted a decade, as I have made clear. In addition, I made it clear—and I was not playing party political games with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) when I said it—that the present Government have continued the previous Government's policy in respect of hormone-treated beef. We have not received any information or advice to cause us to change that policy. Nevertheless, we have gone along with the wider European Union decisions on the matter, and we have done our best to facilitate a solution. We take extremely

seriously, the responsibility to protect consumers and we attach paramount importance to their safety and that of the environment.
The World Trade Organisation rules do not prevent us from taking action in that area, but that action must be based on science. The United Kingdom voted against the European Union ban on hormone-treated beef, on the ground that it was not justified by the science. Last year's WTO ruling came to the same conclusion. The Government will examine very closely the new studies released last week, and we will take independent advice as to whether they contain any new evidence that might alter the United Kingdom's view. That is consistent with our approach so far.
It would be useful for me to make it clear that there has been no ban on US beef as such, only on hormone-treated beef. In 1996, imports into the UK of bovine carcase meat amounted to 2,847 tonnes; in 1998, the figure was 1,580 tonnes, worth just under £4 million. The trade exists, but it is very small and concentrated on the high-quality end of the market.
It has recently been alleged that some of that beef was not hormone free, and the European Union has been in discussion with the Americans about that. Nevertheless, we have made it clear to both the US and Canadian Governments that retaliation against UK products is wholly unjustified. We want to deal with the matter calmly and objectively. Labelling is not the answer to everything, because labels would be attached only to products that were considered safe.
Labelling would not excuse unsafe products: we would not allow products to be sold that we thought were unsafe and posed a risk. Labelling exists to give consumers an informed choice about whether they wish to purchase hormone-treated American beef, non-hormone-treated American beef, or any other beef. That is one of the reasons why the beef labelling scheme operates on a voluntary basis in this country.

Mr. Gray: If it is so important that consumers can choose whether to eat carcinogenic American hormone-treated beef, or American beef that has not been treated with hormones, why does the Minister ignore consumer choice over beef on the bone in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of beef on the bone in about three interventions in the debate. I should be happy to defend the Government's position with respect to beef on the bone, but the interest evident in the next debate means that insufficient time is available. We have scientific and medical evidence that justifies the ban on beef on the bone.
The chief medical officer's lengthy and considered report, published in February, stated that the matter would be revisited in six months. Given that no beef is sold that is more than 30 months old—to which must be added the gestation period of the calf—and that the only known cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy is maternal transmission, it is highly likely that there will be some advances in the policy. There is nothing new in that: we have said as much before. However, it is abject nonsense to argue that the existing ban is not based on scientific and medical evidence.
I shall turn, briefly, to bananas. The allegation has been made more than once in the past few hours that the Government took no action during our presidency of the EU on bananas. That is simply untrue, and I invite hon. Members to check the record.
European Standing Committee A met on 25 March 1998. I was the Minister dealing with the matter for the Government, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) led for the Opposition. He said:
The Opposition support in principle the path that is being taken. Clearly, it is right for the EU to respond to the WTO ruling. It should be recognised that, as the Minister said, the Americans have very much driven that result."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 25 March 1998; c. 18.]
He went on to say that the Opposition "support the Government's approach."
Indeed, in our time in the presidency, the Government succeeded in getting amendments to the banana regime from January 1999. Those amendments were challenged in the World Trade Organisation, and were found not to obey the WTO rules in all respects. That matter is now under active negotiation and discussion with all the interested parties, because we are not prepared to ignore the fragile economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
We have a moral and economic obligation to ensure that we can find a solution to this difficult matter. I agree with some of the points made by Opposition Front-Bench Members about the level of American retaliation, which the arbitrator reduced from $520 million—with which the Americans had been proceeding unilaterally—to less than $200 million. As has been noted—and it is in line with the arbitrator's ruling—the United States has reduced the list of European Union products on which sanctions are imposed.
We are proceeding as fast as we can to solve a problem that is very difficult, but surely not intractable in a civilised world. We want to establish a trading relationship that is satisfactory for banana producers.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister say what the Government will do to help the innocent victims of the banana dispute?

Mr. Rooker: All the victims of the banana dispute are innocent, especially the ACP countries. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order. There are far too many private conversations going on in the Chamber.

Mr. Rooker: After the discussions have been concluded, we shall bring to the House our proposals for a solution to the problem. Beyond that I cannot go this afternoon.
Many hon. Members have made points about genetic modification, trade and the Government's policy. Our policy on genetically modified organisms could have implications for our trading relations with the United States, but that is not so at present. Our primary duty is to protect people and the environment, not to take risks. People are not being used as guinea pigs, and we are satisfied that a comprehensive science-based framework is in place to regulate biotechnology and provide advice.
On 17 December, we announced a Whitehall-wide review of the regulatory process for biotechnology across the fields of human health, agriculture and food. I have told the Select Committee on Agriculture that we shall act on that before the end of the month.
GM crops have the potential to contribute to sustainable agriculture, provide environmental benefits and possibly enhance the competitiveness of UK industry. Some people do not like that idea, but it is true, and we are not prepared to walk away from science that could do all that. We are satisfied with the rigorous safety assessments, although we always seek ways to tighten them or to make them as transparent as possible.
Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), referred to the Christian Aid report. I want to record some comments made by Dr. Philip Dale, a senior research scientist at the John Innes centre in Norwich, in his response to that report. Dr. Dale has worked in the area for a considerable number of years, advising Governments in the third world and more modern Governments. He thought that the Christian Aid report
read like a tabloid newspaper.
The same could be said about the opening speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Dr. Dale added:
I find it a useful rule of thumb that if an article is entirely negative or entirely positive it is more about propaganda than informing people in a balanced way.
The same has sometimes been true of today's debate.
Dr. Dale also said that concerns exist about the influence of multinationals, arguing that they must be watched carefully by Governments where necessary. The idea that a Government can never be trusted and that big business is always corrupt, while non-governmental organisations and campaign groups are always honest is highly prejudicial. It is ludicrous to base a policy on that position, but that was the thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
Dr. Dale—like, to be fair, Christian Aid—points out that more than 800 million people in the world are hungry although there exists one and a half times the food needed to feed the world. The problem is that the food is in the wrong place. We have to grow food where the starving people are, not distribute it to them as if they were refugees. It is possible that GM technology may provide the answer to that problem, once it has been checked out.
In workshops in which Dr. Dale has been involved, people have told him that
agonising over the application of GM pest and disease resistant crops is a luxury of an overfed society. They argue that they are losing substantial amounts of their food to pests and diseases, and in some instances are trying to control them by using cheap chemicals that have been banned in many developing countries.
That is how it is in the third world where people are trying to grow crops, often using second-hand chemicals that we would not allow. New technology may make it possible for them to grow enough food without having to pour chemicals on to it. We have to discuss and investigate that possibility, not dismiss it with tabloid headlines.
Dr. Dale makes a final point about terminator crops, and we have made the same point before. No one ever mentions that the use of a terminator crop
in agricultural terms…is little different from high yielding hybrid varieties which also cannot be used to save seeds.


In those cases, too, seeds have to be purchased every year. Terminator technology may be an advance, particularly in northern Europe where we would not have to spray chemicals on people out in the fields in the following year.

Mr. Chidgey: Do the Government support the sale of terminator seeds to the third world, and do they support the ability of commercial companies to take out patents on indigenous crop varieties?

Mr. Rooker: There are no terminator crops at present. One would think that seeds were being planted. They are not.
Throughout the debate, it has been implied that Governments cannot be trusted and that companies are interested only in the benefits to their shareholders, as if it were likely that companies would gain from planting crops that poisoned people. We are determined to make sure that technology is controlled and that consumers have choice. I wish that segregation existed, and crops grown in the UK will certainly be segregated. We will proceed with farm-scale trials. No free-for-all is planned. In fact a moratorium has been placed on that, as we have made clear in previous debates.
Labelling and transparency will be ensured right down the chain. We are the only country in Europe in which, from September, labelling will be required even in restaurants and the catering industry. The Labour Government took that decision last August, not because it was requested in any parliamentary question and not because of any campaign in the newspapers. Indeed, our decision was not even commented on by the Consumers Association. We took that decision because we thought it right that consumers should have choice, and full labelling and transparency all along the GM food chain.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 300.

Division No. 173]
[4.17 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ballard, Jackie
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Livsey, Richard


Brake, Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab-d-ns)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Tonge, Dr Jenny


Chidgey, David



Cotter, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Paul Keetch.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Donohoe, Brian H


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Drew, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov-try NE)
Drown, Ms Julia


Alexander, Douglas
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L-pool Garston)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Edwards, Huw


Austin, John
Efford, Clive


Barnes, Harry
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Barron, Kevin
Ennis, Jeff


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Flint, Caroline


Begg, Miss Anne
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Follett, Barbara


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gardiner, Barry


Blackman, Liz
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gerrard, Neil


Blizzard, Bob
Gibson, Dr Ian


Borrow, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godsiff, Roger


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Goggins, Paul 


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Burgon, Colin
Hain, Peter


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caborn, RI Hon Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cann, Jamie
Healey, John


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan 


Clwyd, Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corston, Ms Jean



Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Crausby, David
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov-try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S






Kidney, David
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson,Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Roy, Frank


Lepper, David
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Livingstone, Ken
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis



McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mackinlay, Andrew



McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Spellar, John


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Maxton, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


O'Neill, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pollard, Kerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Pond, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Pound, Stephen
Watts, David


Powell, Sir Raymond
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wills, Michael


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Radice, Giles
Wise, Audrey





Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, James
Mr. David Hanson and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the importance of open markets between the EU and the US, notes that in genera] the trade relationship is a good one; acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Government in seeking a solution to the banana disputes in a way that is World Trade Organisation compatible and is helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas; welcomes the Government's commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism; welcomes the Government's commitment to consider sustainable development issues in its approach to trade issues as well as the interest of developing countries; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999.

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received any request from the Home Secretary to make a statement on the extraordinary answer that he has given this afternoon on the Macpherson leak inquiry? As you know, the head of the Government's listening centre at GCHQ has been investigating the leak for two months. He concluded that the leak emanated from the Home Office, either from the Home Secretary, his Minister of State, their political advisers or a small number of civil servants. I think that we would all take the word of the Home Secretary, as an honourable man, that he did not do it. I do not believe for one moment that one of those few senior civil servants in the Home Office leaked it. We need a statement from the Home Secretary so that the House can question him about the involvement of the political advisers and his Minister of State and clear absolutely the few senior civil servants who are inadvertently fingered by this scandalous answer. I believe that the Home Secretary has today been making a statement on access to open government. The answer today is the biggest cover-up that we have seen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The right hon. Gentleman cannot use a point of order to make a speech. There has been no request from any Minister to make a statement. [Interruption.] Order. I can only state the facts as I have them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's words will be noted by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. It is a matter of record that the Home Secretary rightly made a statement on the Macpherson inquiry itself and rightly reported to the House when he interfered with the printing of The Sunday Telegraph when the leak was published. When the leak was clearly designed to destabilise the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
for whom the Home Secretary is the police authority, it is not satisfactory for the matter to be left as it is. I hope that our words will reach the Government and that they will make a statement.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order because I have explained the situation. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has not raised a point of order that I can deal with but made a comment. Points of order should not be used to make speeches.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a point of order.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understand that matters of such importance can be difficult at this time of day. As the House is sitting tomorrow, can you confirm that hon. Members could seek for Ministers to come to the House tomorrow to give account of themselves, thus giving them more notice than we can today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the opportunities for Back Benchers to make such requests.

Parliamentary Democracy

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute allocation for Back Benchers. The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move,
That this House affirms that effective parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom and effective scrutiny in Europe depend on competent, coherent and constructive opposition; regrets the failure of the disunited Conservative Parliamentary Party at Westminster and the antipathetic and complacent Conservative group in the European Parliament to provide that necessary check on the executive, especially given their confusion over the future funding of education, policing, the NHS and other public services, Britain's positive role in Europe, and the achievement of necessary reforms of the institutions and policies of the European Union; and considers that the British taxpayer gets inadequate value for money from the Official Opposition.
Even before I say a word, this motion has served a useful function because it has attracted an unprecedented number of Members to the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: Let me say at least one or two sentences.
The motion may serve a further useful function, however unlikely it may seem, by uniting Conservative Members behind a common position for a fraction of a moment. The previous motion failed to do so; they were here but did not feel able to express an opinion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heath: I shall give way to many hon. Members later, but I would like to make some progress.
I want to quote a Conservative of some historical significance. I think that he is still kosher in Conservative circles. Benjamin Disraeli said:
No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition
He was right. Some have affected to say that this motion is unimportant and inappropriate. That is wrong. I challenge those who say that opposition in this Chamber is unimportant or trivial because it is only by the quality of the Opposition that we can test the mettle of the Government.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Heath: I have a choice. I give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Laing: If the hon. Gentleman considers that opposition is important, about which I agree, why is he not today opposing the Government?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady poses me a conundrum. I have just gone through the Lobby to oppose the Government. She sat on her Bench not opposing the Government. Which of us was acting as an Opposition and which of us was omitting to perform our function?

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is eager, and will have his turn, which I shall enjoy, but he must wait.
Regret has been expressed by some outside the Chamber that our motion did not specifically refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They were looking forward to a debate on his performance as leader of the Conservative party. There are several reasons why we should not do that. First, in discussing the performance of political parties, we should deal with policies and the way in which they present their case and not with individuals.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. David Heath: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all opinion polling evidence reveals that most Liberal Democrat voters agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the single currency? Is not this motion really about the Liberal Democrats' fear of their voters and their attitude to the single currency?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is always entertaining and has lycanthropic tendencies that amuse us all. If he wants to discuss opinion polls, he will find it instructive to consider the popularity of his leader, that of the leader of my party and that of the Prime Minister, even with their own voters.
It is not right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition personally, nor do I want to provoke yet another of his relaunches. We had many from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and now many from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. They have had more relaunches than the Padstow lifeboat. They are getting to be tedious.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to another west country Member. My memory of the west country goes back a long way. I remember debating with the leader of his party when he spoke on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Yeovil in 1983. He puts forward the leader of his party as a model parliamentarian but how can he defend this quote from "Breakfast with Frost" on 15 May 1994 when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) told David Frost:
I was in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. Why? Because I do not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Heath: I have to say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is very noisy indeed this afternoon. I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech and I want to hear it.

Mr. David Heath: Conservative Members are doing half my job for me. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats have for a long time been in favour of a referendum on key European issues; we have always made that plain. Our party was the first to say that. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has a problem with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is the third reason why I must not attack the leader of the Conservative party; it is the policy of the Liberal Democrat party not to do so. We do not wish to undermine the Conservative leader; we leave that to those who are much better qualified to do so.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although, in listening to his speech, I fear that the odds are lengthening on his leadership bid.
If the Liberal Democrats take their responsibilities in the House as seriously as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe, will he explain why the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats from their Front Bench at Business questions this morning, was accompanied by only one other Liberal Democrat Member on the Back Bench?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is assiduous in his attendance. He is always jumping up and down; he wags his finger and does a marvellous job in personal opposition.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Make him the leader.

Mr. Heath: I fear that the hon. Member for Buckingham has no chance of getting on to the Front Bench, if he continues to be effective. Let us put his question in another way. On Wednesday morning, we held an important debate on the Prison Service. Why was not one Back-Bench Conservative Member in the House to discuss the Prison Service?
I must make progress on the main matter: the lamentable job that the Conservatives are doing as the official Opposition. We can excuse them during their first few weeks; they were in shock and they were new to opposition—apart from those Members who had been opposing the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). They had to learn the job. We accept that; opposition does not come naturally to everyone. When you are used to the ministerial Rover, it may take a little time to adjust.
I excuse their collective amnesia. If one is responsible for 18 years of disastrous government, you can understand why you want to put it out of your mind and why you want to forget all the things that you have done. It is understandable that they wanted to forget and move on. There is also a logical inconsistency at the heart of the Conservative Opposition; it is not easy to defend public services when you have spent nearly two decades running them down. It is not easy to portray yourself as the friend of the education service, the health service or whatever, nor to position yourself as the champion of local


determination when you have presided over the most centralising Government that the country has ever seen. Like the over-enthusiastic reveller at the office party, you dimly remember what happened; you want to forget, but, unfortunately, the rest of the office—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I certainly do not want to forget anything. The one thing that I have not forgotten is that the hon. Gentleman should not use the word "you", which implies that he is involving the chair.

Mr. Heath: It was a hypothetical "you", Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I would not suggest that you had attended an office party or that you were an over-enthusiastic reveller, in any circumstances.
I accept that some individual Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Buckingham, show great assiduity in their personal opposition. They have been consistent in opposing. The only regret is they have been consistently opposing different things at different times and are mutually incompatible in their opposition. That is the real charge and our real problem with the current official Opposition. The Conservative party at Westminster—[Interruption.]

Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I am almost flattered. He talks about inconsistency. Will he talk about the inconsistency between the manifesto on which his party stood in Scotland last week and his party's preparedness to renege on a key pledge on tuition fees only a week later?

Mr. Heath: I have heard nothing about reneging. [Interruption.] I have heard the Parliament of Scotland going about its business on Scottish affairs, quite separately from this place—quite rightly too. If we are going to talk about the Scottish Parliament, the hon. Gentleman may care to reflect that if the voting system that he and his colleagues advocated had been in place, there would not have been one Scottish Member of Parliament from the Conservative party. They have made not one ounce of progress since the general election. Furthermore, if there were a Conservative Member in the House who represented a Welsh constituency, we could talk about Wales and point out that there would be only one Member in Wales and that he would certainly not be the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Not only did he lose his personal seat, but his vote has gone down since the general election.
The real charge is that the Conservative party at Westminster is so divided, so incoherent and so unable to maintain a consistent position on almost anything that its Members are giving the Government an easy ride. That is the greatest failure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the question of consistency in giving the Government an easy ride. Two months ago, the House held a Third Reading debate on a relatively small piece of legislation, dealing with blocking up a loophole relating to business rates. The Liberal Democrats voted against the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and their spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam

(Mr. Burstow) told me that he and his party would be voting against the measure on Third Reading. When the Government thought that they were going to lose the vote—indeed they came within 24 votes of losing—why did the Liberal Democrats abstain, on the instruction of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Where is the consistency in that?

Mr. Heath: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall can make his own points. [Interruption.] The uniform business rate system was introduced by the Conservatives, maintained by the Conservatives and it is now maintained by the Labour Government. Only one party has been consistent in its opposition to the uniform business rate—the Liberal Democrat party.
The performance of the Conservative Opposition so concerned members of the press that, after six months, The Sunday Times concluded that the Tories had simply given up on Westminster—I think that was right. I have seen very little reason for The Sunday Times to revise its opinion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I have been giving way almost consistently. This must be the last time.

Mr. Fraser: In a bid to help the hon. Gentleman out of the hole into which he is digging himself, and because it is the Liberal Democrats who instigated the debate, may I ask him to confirm how many times the Liberal Democrats have voted in the House in the past year, how many times they have voted off their own bat, how many times they have abstained and how many times they have voted with the Government, so that we can judge their record?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has the same access to parliamentary facilities as I do and I really do not see why I should do his research for him. Curiously enough, I do not know the answer to all of his questions and I suspect that not a single hon. Member present does.
To return to the subject of the Conservatives' consistency, let me point out that, when in government, they were against labelling genetically modified foods and they did everything they could to speed up the introduction of GM crops, but now they are against them. The Conservatives have done the most remarkable U-turn on the fuel duty escalator: they introduced it, they agreed to it, but now that a few lorry drivers have arrived on their doorstep, they purport to oppose it. Their Home Office team calls for more police spending, but their Treasury team asks for less spending on public services, and they then try to reconcile the two demands. Simultaneously, in separate Standing Committees, Conservatives argued for capping in respect of the Greater London Authority, but against capping for authorities in the rest of the country.
Consistency is not the Conservatives' strong point, even on serious matters, on which the House and the country have the right to expect a degree of consistency from Conservative Front Benchers. I accept that hon. Members have strongly held and differing views on matters as important as the crisis in Kosovo, but I have to


ask the Conservatives what their official position is. Is it the one stated by the Leader of the Opposition on 23 March, when he said:
Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement."—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 163.]?
Or is it the stance the right hon. Gentleman adopted yesterday, when he pressed the Prime Minister for precisely that use of ground troops and criticised him for delaying the decision to deploy them?
That brings me to the subject of Europe. There are 162 Conservative Members in the House and there are at least 162 different opinions on Europe among them. No amount of papering over, no heavy-duty camouflage and no ducking and diving can disguise that brutal fact, which is why they get themselves in such an amazing tangle. Let us take the example of fisheries policy—a matter debated on several occasions in the House. Tory policy tosses and turns with every tide: it has drifted from the impossible to achieve to the impossible to define. On 15 December 1998, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said:
We need to bring back under national control our own fishing grounds".—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 322, c. 844.]
and he later said:
We shall be as resolute in demanding and obtaining those requirements as Baroness Thatcher was many years ago."—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 322, c. 847.]
Setting aside the question of whether Baroness Thatcher was quite as resolute as the hon. Gentleman says, is that a policy that commends itself to the rest of the party? It would appear not, because James Provan, the Tory Member of the European Parliament who is the Tories' fisheries spokesman there—there are two fisheries spokesmen, one in Westminster and one in Brussels—said:
Leaving the common fisheries policy is not an option that Britain can consider.
That appears to be the view of the former fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who advocates a form of zonal management. The Conservatives have a shoal of fisheries spokesmen, each dangling from a different hook.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is most unfair that conversations are continuing throughout the Benches—that cannot be allowed. It is not good that I keep having to stand up to ask for order.

Mr. Heath: Something Conservative Members might find interesting is what appears to be a definitive statement of Conservative fisheries policy on 11 March. The hon. Member for Teignbridge said:
Let me make it clear, yet again: in our defence of the British fishing industry, we rule nothing in and nothing out."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 492.]
There we have it—the Conservative position on Europe is that they rule nothing in and nothing out, because some would rule it in and others would rule it out and they cannot agree among themselves.

Miss Anne McIntosh: rose—

Mr. Heath: The same is true of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, with the possible exception

of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is trying to catch my eye and who is unique in representing part of Yorkshire in this place and part of Essex in the European Parliament—I am sure that she reconciles those two functions admirably. I shall be happy to give way to her.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I hope that he can help me to understand the motion. The word "antipathetic" is not well known in the English vocabulary; does he mean it in the Spanish sense of "antipatico"? When he criticises the Conservative group in the European Parliament for failing
to provide a necessary check on the executive",
is he expressing a wish that the Conservative group in the European Parliament should provide a brake on the Executive in this country? I doubt that that is the desire of the majority of Members of this House.

Mr. Heath: Obviously, I shall have to help the hon. Lady with her English. I must disappoint her: antipathetic is not the opposite of pathetic. It is possible to be pathetic and antipathetic at the same time, and the Conservative group in Europe does it so well. If the hon. Lady looks in her dictionary, she will find that antipathy is defined as incompatibility and mutual opposition. I cannot think of many words that better sum up the position of the Conservative group in the European Parliament.
What are the three issues on which we might expect that group to adopt a coherent approach? The first issue is changes in the policies of the European Union. As we have seen, members of the group cannot agree among themselves, so how can they influence even other conservatives in the European Parliament? The answer is that they cannot, because they are completely ineffectual. Let us take an example.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I will recognise the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let us take this example first, and then he can react to it.
Irrespective of what one thinks of the euro, the debate on the launch of the euro, on 2 May 1998, was a historic one for the European Parliament. What was the position of the British Conservative group in Europe? Two voted for, three voted against, nine abstained and four did not bother to turn up.

Mr. Steen: Now that we are on the question of definitions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrats are the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter of British politics—yellow and easily spread?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman had obviously been preparing that intervention for a very long time and it would be wrong for me to try to top it, so I will not.
On the European Commission, the second major topic for the European Parliament, where were the Conservatives when we held the essential debate on the conduct of the two Commissioners in question—when the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformers, led by that excellent man, Pat Cox, were leading the charge against Mrs. Cresson and Mr. Mann? They were all over the


place, as usual. They were split, they were unable to persuade their colleagues and, eventually, they went along with the fudge put together by Mr. Santer and the Socialist group on the European Parliament. The result was that the opportunity passed, and the chance to identify and get rid of the people who had abused their position in the Commission passed with it. I believe that the European Parliament will come to regret that.
The third issue is that of MEPs' pay and allowances. On 18 June 1998, MEPs were asked—it is an important question, because that was the point at which we could start the process of getting MEPs' pay and allowances into line—whether a system should be established
whereby all allowances for MEPs reflect actual costs".
That is not an unreasonable request, one might think—not something that one would oppose easily. Well, the Conservatives in Europe managed it. Four voted for it, eight voted against it, two abstained and four could not be bothered to turn up. I do not know whether it was the same four who could not be bothered to turn up.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Perhaps they were arrested at customs.

Mr. Heath: I could not possibly comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
On 3 December, we had the introduction of the "statute for MEPs", setting pay and conditions and allowances. What was the reaction of the Conservatives in Europe to that? Two Conservatives were for it, 12 abstained this time, and four did not bother to turn up. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same four."] I have my worries about those four.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Since we have reached December, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is doing a very good impression of the man with the nice white beard who gave my young son a gift at Christmas? [Interruption.] Not, indeed, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Are the Liberal Democrats seriously trying to be an Opposition at all? What gifts does the hon. Gentleman expect from Ministers? Does he expect the reward received by the Liberals in my local council, Blaby district, who ran the district in a Lib-Lab pact for four years and, as a result, were thrown out in last week's election?

Mr. Heath: One of the most memorable things ever said to me by a Conservative was in the chamber of Somerset county council, when I was accused of being a cross between David Lloyd George and Father Christmas. I have rather liked that ever since.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Which part?

Mr. Heath: That is for the hon. Gentleman to discover. His briefing notes are clearly inadequate.
Let me give one last example of the Conservatives' inadequacy in the European Parliament. On 13 April, for once, the Tories all voted the same way—all those who turned up. I suspect that four were absent. They voted en masse to support an independent report on the "Corpus Juris". Unfortunately, they voted en masse the wrong way.
Edward McMillan-Scott, the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, had to come to the BBC later to say:
Having discovered what it said, I changed my vote.
He had not read the document before telling the Conservative Whips which way to vote, so the Conservatives all trooped into the Lobby to vote for something that was the opposite of what they thought.
That is a measure of the consistency, the coherence and the ability of the Conservatives to do their job properly in the European Parliament. The Tory party is not a party that can provide proper scrutiny in Europe or persuade others to embrace the reform that is essential in Europe. It is a confused disgrace.
The Conservative party no longer knows what it is for. Over the past week we have seen how confused it is about funding public services. It is in denial over its record in government. It cannot understand that others have longer memories than it does. It is chronically disordered and incoherent in its response to Government policy. It cannot muster the slightest pretence at a united policy on Europe.
The Conservative party has elevated expediency to an art. Its answer to any question of policy is to ask the relevant Minister to resign. One day we will want a Minister to resign—possibly as a result of the revelations made in a point of order earlier—but no one will take the slightest notice when Conservatives call for that, because they do so every week. The Conservative party is, as we have seen, ineffectual to the point of peripherality in the European Parliament. It is failing in its duty as an Opposition—a duty that we believe to be important. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, To leave out from "opposition" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes with contempt that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party considers it to be a constructive use of specially allocated opposition time to indulge in a petty and vindictive attack on Her Majesty's Opposition rather than to challenge the executive and hold it to account; and points out that, in so doing, a Party whose record of attendance and willingness to sacrifice principle for party advantage shows that it has no constitutional claim to the position and privileges which are rightly accorded to opposition parties in the parliamentary system.
I shall deal first with the motion that we seek to amend. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Liberal Democrats today. They have given us half an hour of enormous fun. In their incredible motion, they have shown a way of raising hypocrisy to a new height. They have shown how to take the science of sycophancy to new frontiers, and they have broken all records in arrogance and sanctimony.
I use those two words carefully. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has made a lifetime career of perfecting the arts of sanctimony and arrogance, yet even he has not had the gall to lead the debate today. He knows that there are


limits to the credulity of the British public, and he has left the jester's role today to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has done very well as a jester.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's appreciation of parliamentary debate needs a little improving. I have never heard such a load of synthetic rubbish as we heard over the past half hour.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome got quite carried away and even sat in the seat of his rather more senior namesake, who is at least listened to with great respect when he addresses the House, but we should not be surprised that we find ourselves facing this motion today. We know that the Liberal Democrats, in their increasing desperation for recognition, have for many years been prepared to abandon all their principles, and even sell their grannies, to get a part share in the back seat of a ministerial car.
Today, the Liberal Democrats have left their grannies far behind and gone one further. In an attempt to curry favour with the Government, they have quite simply abused an Opposition day. It is worth recalling that an Opposition day gives the opposition parties the chance to choose and debate a motion which holds the Government to account on the vital issues of the day.
Opposition days, as we know and appreciate, are valuable and rare. There are many matters of great moment which we might have thought the Liberal Democrats would have chosen for debate today—Kosovo, the situation in Northern Ireland, or education, which they are always telling us they are so interested in. We might have debated health or we might even have had a proper debate on their European dream—but which, of all those important topics, have they chosen? None. Instead, they seek to launch a half-baked, ill-informed, misdirected and totally ineffective attack on us.
The motion talks about
competent, coherent and constructive opposition",
but the Liberal Democrats have launched this debate, which shows clearly that they are no Opposition at all. All I have learned from today's debate is that Liberal Democrats can be pathetic and antipathetic at the same time.
The Liberal Democrats have been caught in a quandary. At this very moment, they are working out a coalition deal with Labour in Scotland, even at the expense of having to abandon pledges made in the recent election. They are, rather tragically, in mourning—I suppose that we should have some sympathy for them—because they have not even been invited to join a coalition in Wales. They long for Cabinet participation in England; indeed, I understand that they and the Government have published today their joint vision on a further sell-out of British sovereignty in Europe. They have not come to the House to tell us about that; they did not even bother to give us any indication of it in the debate.
No wonder the Liberal Democrats have tried to deploy the smokescreen of this synthetic attack on the Conservative party in opposition. They did not dare take the Government on because they want to get into bed with them, but that will not work. Everybody knows that the

motion has been tabled because they are no longer, in reality, an opposition party or even part of the Opposition. The motion comes from a party that is now so firmly in bed with the Labour party that it has become little more than a shapeless lump under the Government's duvet.
The Liberal Democrats talk about effective parliamentary democracy and competent opposition. What a time for them to choose to do so—they are effectively leaderless. Their leader has announced that he is going and I cannot say that his absence will be noted, because he is rarely here. His potential successors are at sixes and sevens on the direction that their party should take. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"' Even when the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was on his feet, less than half the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party was here to support him.
We are told that the Liberal Democrat leadership campaign has not started, but I have never seen such manoeuvring as is going on at the moment—it gives a totally new meaning to the phrase "a fluid situation". There is even a chance that a Scottish Member of Parliament will become the leader of the Liberal Democrats; imagine the coherent and effective leadership there would be then. Such a leader would be preaching the Liberal Democrat mantra of more public spending on education in England, but would not even be in a position to influence education in his own constituency after the Scottish Parliament has taken over.
Such a leader would be a part-time Member of Parliament who would be cut off from the normal day-to-day problems of our constituents, which the rest of us have to deal with. It would be very like having a party leader appointed from the House of Lords. Yet this is the party that seeks today to lecture us on coherence, competence and effectiveness. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will take no lectures on competence from the Liberal Democrats.
Last week, the electorate gave their verdict where the Liberals have been in power, and where that competence has been tested. Worthing gave them the order of the boot, as did Horsham, Waveney, East Dorset and New Forest. The Liberals lost control of 19 of the 32 councils that they were defending; we gained 48. Last week, overall, the Liberals lost 160 seats in England and Wales, while we gained more than 1,300. That is the real test of competence: that is the electorate's verdict on Liberal competence compared with ours. Where the Liberal Democrats had a real track record on which to base their judgment, the electorate found that competence wanting.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's thesis that that is the real track record. Four years ago, when the seats were fought, the party of which the right hon. Gentleman is chairman lost 2,000 seats. The fact that it gained 1,300 on this occasion is a result of its winning back the seats that it lost when its Government were among the most unpopular in the modern history of Britain. Was that the correct verdict of the electorate?

Mr. Ancram: I am glad that the electorate saw the error of their ways in the recent elections, having been taken in four years ago by the Liberal Democrats' pretence that they could be competent administrators in local government. After four years, the electorate have


now discovered—in the case of more than half the councils that the Liberals used to control—that, far from being competent, all they produced was indecisiveness and drift; and the electorate have taken the first possible opportunity to get rid of them.
The Liberal Democrats know this. We have heard the excuses for the lack of a motion relating to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; but for days the Liberal Democrats have trailed with the media the idea that today's debate would constitute a personal attack on my right hon. Friend. After last Thursday, they suddenly realised that they would look more foolish than they normally do, and—if I may use a current expression—they have degraded their motion into the pathetic specimen that is now before us.

Mr. Steve Webb: I hesitate to return the right hon. Gentleman to an issue of substance, but may I pursue the question of the consistency of the official Opposition? The deputy Leader of the Opposition made a speech in favour of public services in the context of health and education, and a few days later, sitting next to me on a public platform, repeated his plans to privatise pensions. Which of those views does the right hon. Gentleman think is consistent?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should examine the facts more closely before making statements like that. He ought to take a little account of what is happening at this moment in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. In the words of the Paymaster General herself, the Committee is debating matters of vital importance to British industry. I understand that for most of the afternoon no Liberal Democrat has been present in the Committee, and that while the Minister was making her statement about the vital importance of the matters being discussed, one Liberal Member wandered in. That is the test of opposition. The test is whether the Liberal Democrats are prepared to get down to the grind of opposition, and to take part in Committee debates.
For the Liberal Democrats to attack our record in opposition really takes the biscuit. The disparate bunch sitting on the Liberal Benches today represent the party that was so "coherent", to use their own word, that last September it turned turtle on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will recall the embarrassing climbdown of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is present now. During the emergency debate on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, dealing with the Omagh terrorists, the hon. Gentleman had to withdraw publicly his support for the Government's position when his attempt to ingratiate himself with the Government fell foul of his leader's arrogance. No doubt hon. Members recall his immortal words:
I am sincerely sorry if I have in any way led
the Government
to expect my full support for the whole motion."—[Official Report, 2 September 1998; Vol. 317, c. 728.]
That expectation was based on the fact that the hon. Gentleman had appended his name to the motion. I suppose that he is going to tell us now that we should not regard the fact that the names of his colleagues are on today's motion as any indication that they support the motion.
This is the party that was so coherent before Christmas that, having spent the whole of the previous year demanding open list systems of voting for proportional representation elections, voted consistently against our attempts to achieve that for the European Parliament elections. It is the party that is so coherent that it continues to talk about its education policy in terms of 1 p on income tax, which does not sound very much, as opposed to telling the truth: it would mean that each average family would pay £150 extra in tax. The Liberal Democrats know that that would not go down too well.
The Liberal Democrats are the party that is so coherent and honest that, even now, it is negotiating to make a deal with Labour in Scotland which will compromise the pledges that the Liberal Democrats made to the Scottish people during the recent election. Far from coherent or constructive opposition, that is a betrayal of those who voted for them in the Scottish elections. It is Liberal Democrat politicians behind closed doors cocking a snook at their voters, while abdicating constructive opposition, or indeed any opposition at all.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says that he does not know what is going on. He must be the only person who is not reading today's newspapers. One of the Scottish newspapers describes it as a sell-out. The Guardian describes it as a "fudge" by the Liberal Democrats, saying that they must have compromised on their position on tuition fees, when they gave a clear pledge to the Scottish people at the election. The ink is hardly dry on the ballot paper before their coherent, consistent and courageous party starts to change its position.
What is clear is that no one is sure of the outcome of the negotiations in Scotland except in one respect: the Scottish people will not get the policies for which they voted. They will get a fudged compromise, which will be a mixture of the agreements arrived at behind closed doors to give the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) a seat in the Cabinet of the Scottish Administration.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is being awfully unfair. The Liberal Democrats have been absolutely consistent for about 10 years: they will do anything, go anywhere and make any deal provided that they can get themselves the semblance of power which being in the Cabinet would give them.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He sums it up well.
What is worrying is that, having discovered in the elections in Scotland and Wales that, if they have the right sort of voting system, they can come fourth in the elections and still get a share of power in government, the Liberal Democrats now support proposals by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to change our national electoral system. They are not satisfied with just trying to opt out of opposition in Scotland and Wales: they are trying to abdicate responsibility for opposition nationally as well. They seek to do that not by winning the support of the British people, but by creating a system that will keep them permanently in coalition without any great support. We will find that Scotland and Wales's instability today will be this part of the United Kingdom's tomorrow.

Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative party as represented in


Westminster has opted out of Scotland and Wales completely and that, in terms of council representation, it has opted out of Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester, Wigan, Gateshead, Knowsley, Salford, South Tyneside; in fact, out of almost every major city in the north of England?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has deliberately left out Carlisle, which, after many years of being a Labour council, is under Conservative control. He talks about our position in Scotland and Wales. I assure him that my party in Scotland and Wales will keep its election promises in the way in which it conducts itself in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The Liberal Democrats have already start to break theirs in both.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my right hon. Friend moves from his theme about the way in which the Liberal Democrats wish to gerrymander the voting system, is he aware that, in every general election since 1983, the total number of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats has gone down?

Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which speaks for itself.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way once more, then make progress.

Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm two points of Conservative policy? First, is it now Conservative Members' position that, despite opposing the method of election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, they now accept it; their Members will take their seats in those bodies; and they recognise that it is a perfectly legitimate method of election? If so, and secondly, does the Conservative party now guarantee that, if it were ever again elected to power, that election system would remain in place?

Mr. Ancram: On many occasions since the referendums and passage of the legislation, we have said that we do not like the electoral system created in Scotland and Wales. However, those are the rules of the game, and we play the game by the rules that we find. We still believe that first past the post is the right way of conducting elections in the United Kingdom.
In their motion, the Liberal Democrats mention the word democracy—which is normally understood to mean rule by people—yet, in everything that they seek to do, they are attempting to create "Libocracy", which means unrepresentative nile by the Liberal Democrat party itself.
Liberal Democrats lecture us on effective and constructive opposition, but I should put a few facts before the House. Liberal Democrat Members are such an effective opposition that, since November 1998, they have spent a grand total of 42 hours and 41 minutes speaking on main business. That contrasts with the official Opposition's 150 hours spent on main business.
The Liberal Democrats are so effective in opposition that, in the 1997-98 Session, on major Bills, they voted with the Government two out of every three times. As my

hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said, the Liberal Democrats are so effective in opposition that, earlier this year, having already voted against Second Reading of the Rating (Valuation) Bill—and realising that the Bill could be defeated without their abstention, for which Labour would subsequently smack their bottoms—they abstained on the Bill's Third Reading.
The Liberal Democrat party is such a constructive opposition that, until February 1999, it allowed the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) to sit on the Defence Committee, scrutinising the Government, while he was simultaneously working with the Government on their much vaunted Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee. If by "constructive" they mean simultaneously being both the scrutiniser and scrutinised, they have certainly achieved it. However, it hardly matches their pious words in today's motion about providing
that necessary check on the executive".
The Liberal Democrats preach to us about opposing, but we have opposed, questioning the Government every step of the way. We warned of the anomalies that devolution would throw up, which we are now seeing with each passing day. We fought against the raft of regulations and burdens that the Government have imposed on business. We have opposed the tax increases that have been introduced by stealth. We warned about the dangers to the health service resulting from Labour's wrong priorities. We have spoken up for farmers, fishermen, road hauliers, parents, and small businesses. We have stood up for the people of the United Kingdom who are suffering because of the Government's actions. In short, we have opposed.
Where have the Liberal Democrats been? They have been all over the place, except on one issue. To be fair to them, they have shown a coherent position on one subject—Europe. Their motion criticises our position on Europe and the conduct of our Members of the European Parliament. They accuse us of failing in several respects, particularly in reforming the European Union's policies. The easiest way of understanding what they mean by that criticism is to examine what they have done and are doing in practice.
We know that the Liberal Democrats ignore the views of the British people and call for us to join a single currency now. We know that they want a fast track to integration. We know that they want a common European foreign policy, a common European defence policy and a common European social policy. Their ultimate aim is a common European Government. It is strange to say, but on Europe, they almost make Romano Prodi look like a reactionary.
Liberal Democrat MEPs have voted for a common asylum and immigration policy and a common visa policy. They also voted for abolishing all border controls, and for ending the veto in justice and home affairs.
What about social Europe? On 19 January, Liberal Democrat MEPs voted for
a genuine European social area to be established".
It was to be based on the European social model, with social legislation
binding and to apply throughout the Union.


The motion continued:
Rather than allowing a certain trend towards deregulation, legislation must remain the essential instrument for enshrining social rights".
Liberal Democrat MEPs have also voted for tax harmonisation. They want more environmental taxes and taxes on energy products. They want to harmonise European education systems. They want a pan-European electoral system and have voted for a motion calling for "a genuine European executive" with a view to promoting a union acting as an integrated, united and coherent body. In short, they want a United States of Europe.
Presumably that is what the Liberal Democrats mean by being a constructive opposition in Europe. We want no part of it and neither do the majority of the British people. If they criticise us for not pursuing their Euro-integrationist dream, let them have the courage to come out openly in the coming European election and defend the policies that they have voted for in the European Parliament. Let them ask the British electorate for their verdict. We shall argue for Britain in Europe, but not run by Europe. Let them argue for a Britain submerged and subsumed by Europe, which is the logical outcome of their policies. But I am probably hoping for too much. I suspect that, as usual, we shall see the unedifying sight of Liberal Democrat candidates hiding their European light under a bushel for fear of being seen too clearly.
We shall place our position on Europe clearly before the British people and we shall show how our MEPs have worked for that position. Conservative MEPs have fought a strong rearguard action in favour of a free market Europe, securing important successes. They prevented the quotas on non-European television programmes that the Commission had wanted. They frustrated socialist attempts to impose impossible burdens on business, including a policy last week on the distance selling of financial services. Those meat and potato issues are the work of the European Parliament and the Conservatives have been defending the interests of the people of this country.
On fraud, the record of Conservative MEPs has been second to none. Two of them—Edward McMillan-Scott and James Elles—have done more than anyone else in the European Parliament to make the fight against fraud and mismanagement such a big issue. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was wrong about the record of Conservative MEPs in the votes on the Commission. The Conservative MEPs said no to signing off the 1996 accounts in the first move that set off the recent events. Conservative MEPs sponsored the motion to sack the Commission in January. Conservative MEPs went into alliance with the Commission's auditor-turned-whistleblower, Paul van Buitenen, to expose the scale of mismanagement in the Commission. Conservative MEPs pushed for Edith Cresson to step down immediately. Conservative MEPs are leading the campaign to ensure that the so-called caretaker Commission—better referred to as a cling-on Commission—packs its bags and clears out as soon as possible.
We have a clear position on Europe. It is the position of a responsible Opposition. The motion is a sham. It is put forward by a party that is leaderless, rudderless and

without principle—a party that has been rejected in the country by those who have experienced its "effectiveness", its "coherence" and its "competence". Not only have the Liberal Democrats failed for years to oppose: today they seek to promote and join the Government whom they were elected to oppose.
Many of us have known for a long time that Liberal Democrat politics and straight dealing have never been easy or close companions. The motion is a second-rate motion from a second-rate party. It does nothing for democracy and even less for the party's reputation. If I am ever again asked to define the words "rank hypocrisy", I should be hard pressed to find a better example than the motion. I ask the House to reject it with the contempt that it deserves and to support our amendment.

Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that I shall not give offence by saying that I have never heard a more inconsequential set of speeches made in the House of Commons on the subject, allegedly, of our role as a Parliament in our system of government. I say that without offence because I do not want to join in the exchange of abuse.
I hope that the Hansard of today's debate is not made available to our troops and airmen involved in the war in Kosovo. Most hon. Members know that, over recent years and for a variety of reasons, Parliament has become less and less relevant to decision making in our society. To avoid following the pattern of the previous speakers, I should point out that the process of bypassing Parliament; the centralisation of power; the use of patronage; and the use of the royal prerogative to avoid serious debate began under earlier Governments and is being continued under the present Government.
I wish to speak about the relevance of this debate to next Tuesday's debate on Kosovo. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have asked on a number of occasions—the request has been echoed by Opposition Members—for the House of Commons to be allowed to express its view on this major war, which is involving not only our service men but their families, and which will cost the people of this country a great deal. The Government have consistently refused to allow that.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whom I have known and worked with closely over the years—whether we could have a vote. In reply, on 22 April, she said that
although I well understand the express wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that he describes and suggests, there is no precedent for that in the House."—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 1053.]
That is to say that the present Government, who are committed to modernisation, are basing their decisions on the mediaeval principle that the question of going to war is a matter of royal prerogative—and so indeed it is.
I looked back to the journals of the House for 1621—a month or two before I got here—when James I sent a direction to the House of Commons that it had no business discussing foreign or defence policy. The House passed a protestation, and the King then dissolved Parliament. The question whether the legislature has any role in the conduct of foreign and defence policy must concern people who take different views in this House.
Some of my hon. Friends are in favour of the deployment of ground troops and of stepping up the bombing, and should be allowed to express that view in the Lobby. Others, such as myself, think that the venture was ill judged, ill thought out and has failed. I should be allowed to express that view, on behalf of the people who elected me. A vote could then take place. If we are to discuss parliamentary democracy—as distinct from this debate between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, which may have been fun for them but was not for me—we ought to discuss that matter.
For our children, we describe ourselves as a democracy. I always attend state occasions and, in this House, we talk about a parliamentary democracy. When the Queen makes a speech, she does not mention either word—she says that we are a constitutional monarchy. There is all the difference in the world between a democracy, a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. The reason why the Queen says that is that Parliament cannot be called without a writ inviting the returning officers to return Members. When we meet, I have to tell a lie to sit in this House—I must say:
I swear by almighty God that I will bear faithful and true allegiance".
I do not believe that—I am a republican. Every Minister must swear an oath of allegiance. The Privy Councillors's oath is even worse. They must say that they will defend the monarch from "foreign prelates, potentates and powers". When they go as Commissioners to Brussels, Privy Councillors take another oath, and say that they will take no notice of any nation that might put pressure upon them. These may not seem to be significant questions, but they become so when a war occurs and we are not consulted.
I wish to refer to the growth in patronage. All Prime Ministers appoint all the bishops; why cannot the Church of England have the confidence to choose its own leaders? Why cannot we select or vet judges in the way that the Senate does in the United States? The Prime Minister has just appointed a new Commissioner to Brussels who, I understand, is not even the choice of the Conservative party. He has used his patronage to appoint a Conservative representing a different view, but that is the practice. All Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister.
If the Labour evidence given to the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords is to be believed, all the House of Lords is to be appointed. Some wonder whether it is not the intention to appoint the whole House of Commons, but we have not reached that stage yet. It is certainly true that the use of party patronage in choosing a First Minister in Wales or a mayor in London, or disposing of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), shows a desire to control everything.
Everyone with power wants to do that, so we must ask not why they do it but why we accept it. The House has the capacity to do something about it. I introduced the Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill—

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Benn: I hope that this will not cut into my time.

Mr. Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is debating parliamentary democracy, but he is not speaking to the

motion. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether we should be debating the motion or the short title, as chosen by the party that chose the motion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the short title is most misleading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): First, let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is injury time, so he has not lost out as a result of the point of order.
I have not heard anything out of order so far. There is a broad title to the debate, and I shall naturally listen to all hon. Members to ensure that they stay within it.

Mr. Benn: It would be difficult for me if discussing parliamentary democracy in a debate under that heading were itself ruled out of order. If I ever left Parliament it would be to devote more time to politics, because it is very difficult to be in the House and have any political role.
The Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow, for Preston (Audrey Wise) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson); by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews); by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster); by the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman); and by the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). That is broad support. Even the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) signed an early-day motion calling for the Commissioners to be approved by the House of Commons.
Trying to be constructive, I consulted the 17th-century precedents, when the abuse of Executive power had reached similar proportions, and decided that we should send a humble address to Her Majesty. I have drafted it, and I would be grateful for support from all parties. I have written to certain Privy Councillors.
The draft reads:
To Move:
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Royal Prerogatives relating to the making of war and the commitment of the Armed Services to the present military operations in the Balkans be now placed at the disposal of the House of Commons for the purpose of permitting Members of Parliament to debate and vote upon a substantive Motion on the merits of that policy and any alternative Motions that might be moved designed to lay the foundations of a just and peaceful settlement in line with Britain's international obligations.
I wish that this debate was about our role. The media have taken over. The governor of a central bank, not elected by proportional representation, although one might have expected that from those who favour it, is coming along, as is Rupert Murdoch. They are squeezing us. They do not report us. I hope that they do not report the early speeches in this debate, because they did the House no credit. I say that from the depth of my feeling.
We must restore parliamentary democracy in Britain before it is ultimately squeezed out. I genuinely fear that, so I hope that the speeches that follow will not be a further exchange of hustings schoolboy abuse but will try


seriously to address the question that must concern us all: have the House of Commons and the people whom we represent any role whatever in the decisions that matter in our lives, or are we merely spectators of our fate, and not participants in the future that we want to shape?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although I do not share his view on Kosovo, he expressed precisely the concern that I have felt in the two years that I have been on the Back Benches in opposition. I have been a Minister for almost my entire parliamentary career. I was determined to retain my seat in Parliament and act in a constructive and responsible way in opposition. I have been appalled that many of the conventions that were familiar when the Conservative party was in government have been eroded and that the role of Parliament has been diminished. I have been appalled by the use of patronage, the culture of the control freak, the manipulation of the media and the abuse of the House of Commons to the extent that statements are leaked and consideration of legislation is taken away from this Chamber. Patronage has moved to a new level.
The Liberal Democrats' motion comes at a time when there is a greater need than ever before to check the tyranny of the Executive. The Labour party was understandably desperate for power after 18 years. The disciplines of the control freaks have been applied ruthlessly in government. The activities of the No. 10 policy advisers around Westminster and Whitehall are legion. It has been embarrassing to behold the Liberals, who officially believe in parliamentary democracy, using their motion for a childish attack on the official Opposition when they themselves have sold out the role of opposition because they are so desperate for government. They have played a sycophantic, embarrassing charade in breaking through and joining a Cabinet Committee. The people who most despise that behaviour are the Liberal voters.
I was moved to respond directly to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield because I have a growing appreciation of his concern that Parliament will become progressively more irrelevant. I am extremely alarmed by the use of referendums bounced through without proper debate. I support and endorse the Neill committee's condemnation of the Government for so tilting the argument about, and the funding of, the Welsh referendum. It is the duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account and scrutinise in whatever ways we have left to us the way in which they make decisions and the probity of their behaviour.
Last weekend, many important articles appeared which got to the heart of what motivates the new Labour team. Andrew Marr talked not about the politics of contentment, which apparently is a way of stirring up apathy—the real winners of the elections last week were the apathetic and disinterested—but about prozac politics: the refusal of the Government to expose issues to honest and open debate. The Government walk into things without knowing what to do next. The launch is the product. It is all about the launch. Whether it is devolution or, tragically, the situation in Kosovo, reform of the House of Lords or whatever, we have the launch but then no one seems to

have any idea about what happens next or how to take the issue forward. We should be able to look to the Liberal Democrats to assist us in our work of rigorous examination of the Government's behaviour and policy-making processes.
The debate has been called by the Liberal Democrats on a most curious occasion. It is one week since a great number of us joyfully took control of previously Liberal Democrat-controlled councils. My council is one of the six in which the Conservatives took control from the Liberal Democrats. I am delighted that Worthing was another such council. Eight of the 75 Liberal Democrat seats that were lost last week were in Waverley; 12 of the 1,345 Conservative seats that were gained were in Waverley.
I felt that the House would want to know what Liberal Democrats were like in government. In Waverley, they could not have been described as coherent, constructive or responsible. Indeed, there was an overwhelming desire there to be rid of the Liberal Democrats, who were wasteful, profligate and, above all, secretive. The more they spoke about openness, the less openness they provided. They engaged in empire building, and the management of their different projects was deplorable.
The irony for me, in following the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is that the Liberal Democrats in my constituency go around saying that they blame Labour for losing the election. However, those same Liberal Democrats made no effort to resist the appalling treatment that the home counties have received at the hands of the Government. There have been vindictive and deplorable settlements on local government and health spending, but apparently they have been supported by the Liberal Democrats. In my constituency and others, their approach to expenditure on roads is different from what they profess elsewhere when they ignore the appalling transport problems of the A3 at Hindhead.
I urge the Liberal Democrats, at this time above all others, to take up the obligations and duties of opposition and help us to hold the Government to account. This Government want their members to be on pager control and to speak on-message on all possible occasions. In an extraordinarily ruthless and professional way, the Government insist on placing their spokesmen—and their friends and cronies—in positions of responsibility and influence. The Minister shakes her head, but I shall be happy to give her a number of examples, the most glaring of which involves a person who time and again was rejected for a health appointment. When he made it clear that he had been a lifelong Labour supporter and party member, he was given an appointment at a local health trust within a fortnight.

Mr. Phil Woolas: How does the right hon. Lady square what she has said with the appointment of Chris Patten to the European Commission?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is not remotely difficult to square the two propositions. I was Chris Patten's Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I think that he is an excellent appointment. The Opposition may submit names for the post of European Commissioner, but it is for the Government to select one. Chris Patten, as chairman,


guided the Conservative party to victory at the 1992 general election, when the party gained a million more votes than the Government managed in 1997. I believe that he will conduct his duties with great distinction.
The task now is to ensure that, before Britain and its national interests are eroded beyond repair, the Conservative Opposition secures the co-operation of the Liberal Democrats, who at present show only sycophancy towards the Government. We must build on our successes of a week ago.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am pleased to follow the two previous speakers, who have greatly elevated the debate. I was disappointed when the debate began, as I had expected a debate on parliamentary democracy to be a grand occasion, with stirring speeches being made. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) have raised the tone of the debate considerably. That said, I disagree with each of them almost equally, but that is parliamentary democracy.
If there is a serious point in the motion—it is difficult to detect one—it is about effective scrutiny. We have heard something of Kosovo, and I shall say more later, but I was impressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's generous and principled response yesterday to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), in which he affirmed the importance of questioning, even in war.
When I hear the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey and read newspaper reports about Labour Members being enslaved to their pagers, I wonder whether they are facing reality. I have a pager. In fact, it is vibrating away as I speak, which is quite delightful. It usually tells me that there is a Division in the Commons while I am waiting in the Lobby to vote. The nicest touch of all is that, as I wend my way home, it says, "Goodnight and God bless from the Chief Whip"—or words to that effect.
As a Member of only two years' standing, I honestly do not recognise all the talk about control freaks. As a Back Bencher and as a member of the parliamentary Labour party, I have dissented in the past, and I am dissenting now about crucial aspects of Government policy. In my experience, honest dissent and principled disagreement are acknowledged. People are listened to, and attempts are made to accommodate one's point of view and to reconcile it with policy.
Another important element of parliamentary democracy—the bottom line, as it were—is that parties which trumpet their policies in manifestos before elections should keep their promises. The Government are keeping their promises. Waiting lists are coming down. Class sizes are being reduced. Crime and disorder is being tackled. We have a new deal for young people, and a stable, sustainable economy. On the reform of the House of Lords, progress has been made that has been dreamt of for 100 years. Devolution has happened. Real progress is being made for those who struggled through 18 dreadful years of Conservative rule.
Tories talk about oppression by the Labour Government, but anyone who experienced life beyond Parliament during the 18 years of Conservative Governments knew what oppression was. I 
experienced

oppression. Almost on the day on which I was promoted in my local government job, a Conservative councillor tried to have me disqualified from my elected position as a councillor because I had reached a certain salary level.
As a social worker, I experienced the poverty and powerlessness of oppressed people throughout 18 years in which the previous Government dictated to local authorities and ordinary people. Conservative Members have nothing to teach the Labour party about parliamentary democracy.
Those of us who yearned for a Labour Government know how important it is to people that this Government are keeping their promises. It is essential that voters can trust that politicians, when elected, will be prepared to do what they said they would do. This Government are to be utterly and heartily commended for keeping their promises. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can acknowledge the importance and truth of the need to keep faith with the electorate.

Mr. Blunt: What advice would the hon. Gentleman give the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on their election manifesto promise on tuition fees?

Mr. Dawson: I have no interest in intruding in the trivial spats between the two disappointed groups of people on the Opposition Benches. I want to stay on the subject of parliamentary democracy and to discuss representation in this House. It is my experience that people want us to be representatives—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of coalition with the Liberal Democrats or not?

Mr. Dawson: I am talking about parliamentary democracy and the representation of the people. I have no interest in entering into the argument with which hon. Members demeaned the beginning of this important debate.
The electorate are looking for representatives in the sense of Edmund Burke—people of conscience. They are certainly not looking for delegates, but for people who value all their constituents, especially, perhaps, those whose views are contrary to their own. The electorate value representatives who listen and learn—whose views and speeches in this place are enriched by the knowledge and experience of those whom we are privileged to represent.
I smiled when the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was protesting—

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dawson: I am sorry, but I intend to continue. The Conservative spokesman was talking about all the great campaigns that Conservative Members have fought during the past two years and how they are the party of the countryside and of business.
I have long known that many urban areas are out of bounds to Conservatives, or at least to those who do not relish close encounters with fierce dogs or fierce constituents. However, in a constituency one part of which had been represented by a Conservative Member


for 27 years and another part of which had never had other than a Conservative Member, I have been amazed that farmers, parish councillors and people who would otherwise be described as the bastions of the countryside have told me, disarmingly and honestly, "Actually, we didn't vote for you, but at least you've turned up, talked to us and listened, unlike the other so and sos. We never saw them from one election to the next."
That phenomenon is not confined to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency. Colleagues from throughout the country have reported the same thing—Conservative Members who have complacently neglected the most basic element of parliamentary democracy, which is to get out and listen to what the people are saying.
However, it is not about representative democracy, but taking opportunities to put people directly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Conservative party seemed to think that this was a trivial motion but, contrary to their expectations, the debate has been better attended by Conservative Members than were their own debates on Tuesday. I welcome them to the Chamber.
Some serious points have been made already, and I hope to add to them. I am anxious to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). When I was a young and impressionable student, I campaigned on his behalf in a Bristol by-election. At that time, Conservatives, Liberals and Labour supporters came to his aid because we felt that the sovereignty of the people was more important than the extraordinary, outdated rules that prevented him from taking his seat in this House. I do not think that I have confessed that to him before and I hope that he will not hold it against me.
Some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield are germane to this debate and relate to the motion. It is not only that I agree with him about the disestablishment of the Church of England—which, as a good Anglican, I think would release the Church—nor because I agree with him about the royal prerogative. One of the most significant things about our Parliament is that it has responded and evolved throughout history. I have confessed to the hon. Gentleman before that I am a descendant of Oliver Cromwell. When he mentions the 17th century, I follow his history lesson with interest, but I remind him that British politics has evolved since then. It is no longer roundheads and cavaliers, Whigs and Tories or 19th century Liberals and Conservatives. The House and the country have a multi-party system. It is precisely because we have a different political system on the eve of the 21st century that this Parliament must mature and catch up with the rest of the body politic.
It is good fun this afternoon, as it was yesterday at Prime Minister's questions. American viewers no doubt enjoy the mock mediaeval jousting match that they see on Sunday as late-night entertainment. However, in terms of achieving things, that is all out of date. There is a serious point to our motion. The Conservatives must adapt to a different type of politics.
What is the new politics? The new politics says that effective opposition is selective opposition, not opposition for opposition's sake. The only time that the Government have come within a hair's breadth, or even several miles, of being defeated in this Parliament was when the Conservatives, had they voted with the Liberal Democrats and Labour rebels, could have defeated the Government over single parents. The Conservatives were logical in supporting the Government because it was their Bill. I do not blame them for that, but they must understand that in this Parliament, simple frontal attacks will achieve nothing. Last night, I spent some time trying to think of a single Conservative achievement in this Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he now define consistency?

Mr. Tyler: The Conservative party was consistent on that occasion. It supported the Government on that proposal because it had its origins in a Conservative Bill. I have no objection to that. I object to the corporate amnesia to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred and to Conservative Members' constant attacks. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) was a member of the Cabinet that imposed capping on local authorities yet she complained this afternoon. I reject such examples of the rank hypocrisy to which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred.
It is difficult to think of a single instance in this Parliament where the Conservative Opposition have achieved anything. Surely we come here not just to stand up for people and make a noise but to achieve things. I know that the far left and far right resent it, but more of the Liberal Democrat agenda on constitutional reform in our 1997 manifesto has been put in place by the Government than ever appeared in a Labour manifesto. I take pride in that and give credit to the Labour party for it. That is what politics must be in future. It must not be the politics of opportunism or automatic opposition but the politics of influence and achieving things, of making real reforms to our country.
As has been said, it is true that this morning we succeeded in reaching some agreement with the Government about important reforms to the institutions of Europe to ensure that we have an effective NATO and defence policy. I regard that as an achievement. Why is compromise such a dirty word in this extraordinary place? The only reason is that we are hung up on the two-party nonsense that was created by fact that in the reign of Edward IV, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield may recall, the King had a redundant chapel. It had Benches like those on which we sit and it was handed to the House of Commons. The two-party arrangement is an anachronism and has been one for a long time. It will continue to be an anachronism while we have a multi-party state.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Should Labour Back Benchers be represented on the joint Cabinet consultative committee?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is true that he and other Labour Members have less influence than the Liberal Democrats over Members on the Treasury Bench. However, the fact is that there are


many more voters for our style of politics than for his. That is a fact of life. Furthermore, I remind the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey that, last week, our poll figures went up from 17 per cent. to 27 per cent.—that was a real poll, not one that was taken by the pollsters. I have no problem with that.
After two years, the House has an opportunity to take stock and to understand that we are now in a multi-party state. Even in Chesterfield, there is a multi-party state, because the Liberal Democrats won several seats from the party of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Surely, that is healthy local democracy. We must realise that the House will have to find different ways of ordering its business. That is what the motion is all about. The Conservative party must realise that, in this new situation, opposing merely for opposition's sake is not sufficient. That is why we say that the Conservatives must look again at their tactics and their cohesion and must examine the extent to which they are prepared to take account of that new situation.
Some of my colleagues suggested that we should personalise the motion by proposing a reduction in the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. Given the attitude of the Conservatives to performance-related pay, to value for money and to market testing, that might have been a nice idea. However, we felt that it was more important to deal with the wider issue. It may interest Labour Members to know that the Government propose to give the official Opposition £500,000 more. That information was in a written answer—sneaked out last Thursday. By the end of this Parliament—taking the House of Commons and the House of Lords together—the Conservative party will have received £4 million each year from the taxpayer, if the Government's proposals go through. Naturally, my party will not receive anything like that amount.
Even if the Government believe that the official Opposition are giving good value for money, I do not believe that that is the view of the country—as public opinion polls show every day. I do not want to dwell on that point as there are only a few moments left of my allotted time. The most important point is to emphasise that good government depends on effective opposition. Effective opposition does not mean trooping through the Lobbies every night, although it was interesting that Members of the Conservative Opposition sat on their hands during the 4 o'clock Division while we voted on one of the biggest issues of the day. They felt that it was not necessary to scrutinise what the Government were doing or to hold the Government to account. It is not the quantity but the quality of opposition that matters.
I hope that the Conservatives will learn the lesson, eventually—I hoped that they would have learned it by now, after two years—that this is a different sort of Parliament. Our colleagues in Scotland and in Wales are adjusting to madifferent sort of politics—majority rule for the first time. The majority of people in Scotland will now be represented by a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Such majority representation will also be true of the Welsh Assembly. The figures show that Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will represent pretty accurately the division of opinion in the

country. That is not true of this House, almost half of whose Members do not represent the majority of those who voted, let alone the majority of their constituents.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I was elected by a majority.

Mr. Tyler: I was too, and I am grateful for that. However, we are now moving towards a different type of politics. In any sane, deliberative system—whether an organisation in this country or different sorts of Parliament in different parts of the world—compromise is not a dirty word; it is quality that matters. The quality of opposition that has been afforded us by the Conservative party not only does them discredit, but does discredit to the institution of Parliament.

Mr. Tony McNulty: In relation to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), it is entirely right that compromise and quality go together. Compromise is not a dirty word, as we have seen throughout the country. However, given the activities of the Liberal Democrats in the House, I have looked long and hard to find much to do with quality. If the opening speech on the motion and the words of the motion itself genuinely have anything to do with either quality or parliamentary democracy, the hon. Gentleman is using a rather perverse definition of quality. It is not one that I would share. The hon. Gentleman spoke about grown-up politics, but if what we heard from both the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and—although the right hon. Gentleman was much funnier—the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was grown up in any respect, a lot still needs to be done.
I was going to start my speech by saying that I rise more in anger than in sorrow, not least because, given the way in which the debate has proceeded, the best part of three hours of valuable parliamentary time has been utterly wasted. If the motion we were debating held the slightest resemblance to what have been described as matters of substance, I would happily withdraw that charge, but it does not. If what the Liberal Democrats do, both inside the House and outside it, lived up to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would withdraw that charge, but it does not.
My main experience is of London. I would not describe the distribution on the Isle of Dogs of racist leaflets showing a black boxer and saying, "Vote for local people"—nod nod, wink wink, the clear implication being that the black boxer is anything but local, like the black and Asian population in Tower Hamlets—as being anything but the politics of opportunism. Putting out a leaflet in my neighbouring constituency of Harrow, West, that says to local residents, not "A school is about to be built in your area. What do you think?", but "A Jewish school is being built in your area. What do you think?", when there is no planning matter to which religion is anything other than incidental, cannot be called anything but the politics of the gutter and of opportunism.
We might hear the mellifluous tones of cosy old Etonians in this place, but in the real world, that is not the reality of the new politics described by the hon. Gentleman. I could quote liberally other examples of that reality from London and from other metropolitan areas, although I cannot speak for rural areas.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have no knowledge of the second matter
to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in respect of the first matter, does he at least accept not only that the Liberal Democrat party held an inquiry that included people from outside the party—from the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies—and dealt with the matter, but that we are the only party ever to have put an investigation of clear bad practice within its own ranks to independent scrutiny, and to have published the evidence and the conclusions of that inquiry?

Mr. McNulty: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the Harrow case. In response to his other remarks, I shall say what the people of Tower Hamlets said at the time of the pernicious racist leaflet being distributed on the Isle of Dogs: too little, too late—horse bolted, stable door shut. If people mess about with racism, especially somewhere with experience of racism like the Isle of Dogs, holding a cosy little independent inquiry afterwards is too little, too late.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McNulty: Of course—unlike others, I know the injury time rule.

Mr. Prentice: The Labour party put the allegations in respect of Monklands in Scotland to an independent inquiry led by a Mr. Nimmo, QC, so it is not true that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that is prepared to look at malpractice within its own ranks.

Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We shall let the matter lie there.
Given the way in which they have spoken in the debate, the Liberal Democrats have shown a profound lack of wisdom in respect of the proper use of parliamentary time. That is a cause of sadness to me, if not anger. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is entirely wrong to say that the motion is a serious one—it is not, yet it is the motion that the debate addresses, not the points of substance subsequently made in hon. Members' speeches. It is a matter of regret that parliamentary time is being absolutely wasted on such a motion.
As a side issue, I find it deeply interesting that right hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) have somehow developed a distaste for the patronage that served them so well when they were in government and about which we heard not a peep from them when they were the recipients of it. I do not cite the right hon. Lady as the only transgressor in that respect, for there are plenty of hon. Members who, while not saying a word against patronage throughout the period in which they are recipients, suddenly discover an aversion to it when they are no longer recipients.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I particularly mentioned health appointments. The hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean and very many others were given health appointments by the Conservative party when it was in power. My argument was that the party now in government have abused the system to an extent that I personally regard as deplorable.

Mr. McNulty: That is nonsense. The matter has been looked at thoroughly, and all the appointments that we

have made have been fair and above board in a far more transparent sense than anything that the right hon. Lady did. However, she did agree with others that, all of a sudden, patronage has become something to be rebuked, and is regarded as profoundly anti-democratic in this place.
The motion is not serious because it is entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome almost traduced his own motion by his speech, because the Conservatives, to some extent, have a consistent Front-Bench line. I would happily say, in or outside the Chamber, that the line is congealing nicely around an extremist position on any number of issues. On the European Union, the Conservatives have adopted a dreadfully xenophobic and right-wing extremist position, but at least it is a position and it has some coherence. On public services, they consistently, as a party, seek at least to mislead the nation.
I believe that if one looks in detail at the current Finance Bill and the previous two Finance Bills, the running total of revenue measures that the Conservatives have voted against and have declared that they would repeal is about £40 billion-worth. Apparently, they have also signed up to the £40 billion that we shall spend on health and education. Where will that money come from? It is impossible to do both. It is misleading to suggest that it is possible.
The latest transgression is that the Conservatives say that they would freeze fuel duty and tobacco duty. That would cost £7 billion by 2002-03. No mention is made of where the £7 billion to replace that revenue will come from; yet they are still signed up to the £40 billion. I thought, reading some of the details of the Finance Bill, that Conservative spokespersons had gone to the Disneyland school of economic thought and the discussions that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had attended. His economics is just as bankrupt and nonsensical.
I am very happy to say publicly that the Conservatives are turning into an extremely effective, albeit redundant, extreme, right-wing, rather nasty, little Englander outfit, who have probably reached their peak in terms of parliamentary representation, and who will go down, and down with a vengeance.
I am extremely grateful to the people of England. They have ensured that, as a result of the Conservatives' mediocre performance in the English council elections last week, the biggest jester—a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), is secure in his place. We could do no better in this country than to ensure that, with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks secure in his place, the Tory extreme, nasty, xenophobic, little Englander ship goes down, glug glug glugging. Whether it is to be replaced by 30 or 40 more—

Mr. John Hayes: I shall try not to be too nasty in my intervention because I would not want to confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's stereotypical prejudices, but will he reflect on the following? If the Conservative performance in the local government elections was mediocre, how would he rate, against that measure—against mediocrity—the Labour party's performance in those elections?

Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman—as he has often done in the past—clearly leads with the chin, I will hit


him. Tell me, please. anyone—amateur psephologist or not—the last time that the Government of the day led in mid-term local elections. At our nadir, in 1982-83, when we were led by dear old Michael Foot, we were still three points ahead of the Conservative party. If the hon. Gentleman calls that mediocrity, he is taking a silly, ahistorical position. May I add that when I say "nasty", I mean the policies of the hon. Gentleman and his party, not the hon. Gentleman at all. I do not regard him as nasty—far from it. He is a gentleman in all respects, even though his politics are somewhat confused.
In conclusion, I say of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, more power to his elbow. Ultimately—in this the Liberal Democrats are entirely wrong—by causing the death of Conservative England, he will do the House and the country a great service. A statue of him should be put up in Parliament square in time to come. The death of that nasty little party will be music to the ears of the rest of the country.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Listening to the opening contribution from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which was entirely consistent with the flippant tone of the Liberal Democrat motion, and reflecting on the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), which rather deteriorated towards the end, I came to the conclusion that the debate was more interesting and even a touch more constructive than I had anticipated.
Throughout the debate, a number of points became clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House. The first was that we all take our own constituents extremely seriously, and we bring their interests to this place. The second was that we ought to take seriously the arguments and the issues with which we deal, and we should bring them to this place. Thirdly, whatever our party label, and whether we are Ministers in government, on the Back Benches or on the Front Bench of Opposition parties with a duty to scrutinise Ministers, we should have a commitment to the arguments and to making the right decisions on behalf of the country. Of course we are all party politicians, and we all come to this place to do that job as well. We have many roles to fulfil, but we are ill advised if we lose our grip on those essential truths. I hope that that came out in the debate.
However, we should not overlook the fact that there is a perfectly proper role for humour and amusement in this place. If we all took ourselves terribly seriously doing the job all the time—if we could not even laugh at the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he spoke to the motion, rather than perhaps laughing with him—that would be a deficiency on our part.
Equally, I warn the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we should not expect compromise on everything, if we are to commit ourselves to the argument. There will be passionate dissent between one Member and another on important issues. By all means let us compromise and agree when we can, but do not let us sweep under the carpet, in the interests of some coalitionism, some "politics lite" or some new style of politics, the fact that we will not always agree about everything. Let us just commit ourselves to taking the job reasonably seriously.
In that context, I have a little news for the House concerning the Liberal Democrats in my constituency. They did not do very well this time. Their role in the joint

administration in South Northamptonshire was swept out comprehensively—in my view, on its merits. Perhaps there was a precursor to that.
After the last general election, there was a problem with a proposal to put a prison on a particular site, which has since been addressed. I wrote to my Labour opponent, who ran me second—I have no great interest in the Liberal Democrats in that respect, but perhaps I would be better off if I could pump them up—and I wrote to my Liberal Democrat opponent, suggesting that we make a joint approach to the new Home Secretary on the matter, which had exercised us all during the campaign.
About a month later, my letter to the Liberal Democrat, which had been addressed to his headquarters in Daventry, was returned to me bearing the words "Gone away." He had not maintained his interest or his commitment to his prospective constituents.
We need to do better than that. When we get to this place, we need to take legislation more seriously than we do. One or two of the hon. Members who spoke in the debate pointed out that it is rather a long way from the press release or even, these days, the press briefing that precedes the press release, and the softening up on the "Today" programme, to creating a piece of legislation that takes policy through to delivery.
We are here partly to debate issues, but also to legislate on those issues and to try to get that legislation right. It is no good the Government saying, "Wouldn't it be a wonderful idea and something we could all sign up to"—which I do not—"if we could all have devolution?" Nor is it any good announcing a policy on this or that and assuming that it will happen. I have news for the House—I am not against fairness at work, but the issue is what that means, how it is to be delivered and what are the implications for the businesses that will have to deal with it. That is why legislation matters a lot.
The Whip has temporarily left the Chamber, but at least one other member of the Opposition Whips Office is aware of my views. I am like the man in the Bateman cartoon who admitted to a staggered world that he enjoyed Standing Committees, and enjoyed the detail of legislation and trying to get it right. In pursuit of these new politics, the Liberal Democrats may be well advised to take a certain lesson from some of the older hands here about the need to work the system correctly to probe the Government.
My experience of Standing Committees since we have been in opposition—on the Treasury side and in respect of my responsibilities for employment legislation—is that the Liberal Democrats have not failed to make constructive contributions. When they have been present, they have generally contributed well, but they have not majored, as the Americans would say. Their style has been Committee-light, and they do not go into something more than they have to in order to fulfil the obligations to be present and to take an interest.
The Liberal Democrats do not take the Government through the night in Committee a couple of times and do not table hundreds of probing amendments, which are designed to test Governments. If they want to be serious and want to play a part in this place, they should perhaps think about improving on that. They need not necessarily think that doing that would be a waste of time because, as we found with the minimum wage legislation, the Government have to respond—perhaps even a year


later—to points that we have made. That seems to me to be the right way to work. I offer one piece of friendly advice to the Liberal Democrats in respect of Standing Committees: if they want to table probing amendments, they should sharpen up their pencils, and pretty quick, just as they should in a number of other ways.
We do not necessarily receive great accolades because we carry out such work here, but my experience is that the only Members who engage in it seriously, and at least make Ministers consider what they are doing, come from these Benches. That is why tonight's motion is particularly inappropriate, but, because of the nature of the politics that we are trying to build, perhaps we should end on a note of consensus.
I am prepared, as I was during consideration of employment legislation, to seek consensus when it is appropriate. I say to Liberal Democrat Members, if they are not aware of it, that I can say with complete accuracy that Lloyd George knew my father, and knew him well enough not to be a supporter of the Liberal party.

Mr. Hayes: Did he get a peerage?

Mr. Boswell: No, he did not. He was naturally opposed to the Fabian consensus, which was beginning to develop at that time.
The point about Lloyd George, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who is back in his place for the winding-up speeches, as he should be—and all of us is that we come here with something important to say and with our own experience. Members of Parliament, including Ministers, should listen to what people say; they should not concentrate on the soundbite or the press release.
Some of us have been members of Governments, but we do not resent the fact that we are in government no longer; we have a job to do. Back Benchers—members of Her Majesty's Opposition or the tacit supporters of the Government—do not have the right to suspend their own judgment or to sit on their hands. We have a duty to think about what is involved in legislation and speak out when we should. We will do so from these Benches and, in doing so, we will discharge our historic duty to speak for this country and to make sure that this place is used on behalf of the people of Britain to its best effect.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I think that the House has been entertained, but there is a serious point behind the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, good government requires good opposition. The Conservative party is on its heels not just because it has lost power, but because it is rudderless in terms of its philosophy and its ideology. As a consequence, it has no ammunition with which to take on the Government and provide effective opposition.
I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which was very pertinent. The right hon. Gentleman will find that Liberal Democrats believe that, in the case of issues involving the royal prerogative—such as war and peace—the House should vote on a substantive motion. We wholly endorse

the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, and consider that it would be in the national interest, and the Government's interest, to allow such a debate to take place.
In response to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I can only ask, "Where have you been for the past 16 years?" The answer is that, for 14 of them, she was in government, demonstrating the very arrogance and patronage of which she now complains, and which we had to experience at her hands throughout that period. I find it a little hard to take that, now she has suddenly found out what that experience is like, she appears genuinely shocked, as if she did not realise what she and her party were doing and the extent to which it stultified the democratic process by failing to recognise that there are times when those in opposition have a contribution to make.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield expressed his frustration at the fact that the Government cannot always be right, the Opposition are not always wrong, and if this place is to work at all there must be some recognition of that from time to time.
To understand the dilemma of the Conservative party, we need only refer to exchanges that have taken place over the past three or four weeks. The intention was to deliver a new, improved, revised Conservative party. The deputy leader of the party gave a lecture featuring a redefined Conservative philosophy around which the party could unite before the next election. He said:
the public's area of unease about Conservatives is our supposedly hostile attitude to the Welfare State and particularly to Health and Education.

That remains our Achilles heel … Conservatives … must renew public confidence in our commitment to the Welfare State … But we will only do so if we openly and emphatically accept that the free market has only a limited role in improving public services like health, education and welfare.
That is a clear restatement of modern Conservatism, designed to unite the party; but what actually happened? I have read that only three speakers supported the deputy leader of the Conservative party during a frosty meeting of members of the 1922 Committee, while five spoke against him. He received "perfunctory applause". MPs left the meeting saying that they were confused about how big a policy shift the speech represented.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Are we to take it that, first, the hon. Gentleman believes that particular newspaper report, and that, secondly, every newspaper report of a private Liberal meeting will also be accurate?

Mr. Bruce: I have every reason to believe that that is the case, because a number of MPs put their views on the record very clearly. We are told that
Iain Duncan Smith, the Shadow Social Security Secretary, demanded and got a meeting with him"—
the deputy leader—
on Monday, but he refused to budge. There were also strong complaints from Gillian Shephard, the Shadow Environment Secretary … and from Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Health Secretary",
who had not been consulted.
Such is the state of disarray in Her Majesty's Opposition. They no longer know what they believe in, and those who do not know what they believe in are in no state to take on the Government.
Reference has been made to an electoral success. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, regaining 1,300 of the 2,000 seats lost in the worst ever performance, with a reduced overall result, is not exactly success.
I point out a couple of quotes:
The Liberal Democrats defy gravity. The Liberal Democrat share of the vote is up on 1995. You can't put those Liberal Democrats down … they have done well.
Those comments were by Professor Michael Thrasher. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey should take note of the other quote:
I never thought I'd sit in a TV studio and hear the Chairman of the Conservative party boast about retaking Worthing.
That is how far the Conservatives have fallen.
We can all claim successes. Ultimately, the electorate will decide, but the Liberal Democrats are engaging in modern politics and in new-way politics. The Conservative party does not even know what that stands for.
Today, nominations close for the European elections. How many independent Conservatives will have been nominated who oppose official Conservative candidates? Indeed, how many on the official Conservative list will embrace official Conservative candidates who have opposite views on the most fundamental issue that faces us in the European context: whether we should join a single currency?

Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: I do not have much time.
That is the degree of confusion and incoherence that characterises the modern Conservative party. It explains why, fundamentally, it is unable to engage the Government in serious and realistic debate.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am a Devon Member. How does he account for the fact that there is still in this country a Liberal party, which has representation on local councils and fields parliamentary candidates?

Mr. Bruce: It is a free and open democratic country in which people are allowed to put up candidates. I am rather in favour of that; so are other Liberal Democrats. This country has a multi-party system. I represent a Scottish constituency in the House. As has been demonstrated in the elections, Scotland has four political parties.
The Conservative party claims that the result in Scotland is an indication of their fightback. It fought back by achieving a lower share of the vote in Scotland than at the previous general election and by failing to win back any of the first-past-the-post seats that it had lost. It has managed to get representation in the Scottish Parliament on the basis of a voting system that it does believe in, with its Members being elected to a Parliament of which it is not in favour.
I do not know what the Conservatives will do there because, clearly, they do not believe in co-operative politics. They are on record as saying that they regard it as deplorable that parties should seek to co-operate and to form an Administration to deliver their pledges to the people of Scotland. One wonders, therefore, what is the

point of the Conservatives' presence in the Scottish Parliament. The answer is: not much more point than there is at the moment in the Conservative party's presence in this—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: I do not have any time. I want to allow the Minister time to reply to the debate.
The motion is completely serious. We believe that we have not wasted the House's time in tabling it because the people of this country have to consider what intellectual and coherent debate is coming at the Government—who have a massive majority—to engage them and to force them to explain, justify and develop what they do. That is what effective opposition is about.
The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party are engaged in a debate. We often disagree, not about what we want to achieve, but about how we think it should be achieved and in what order. However, that is a real debate about real issues.
We have consistently exposed the fact that it is not possible to deliver additional resources on health and education unless we are prepared to find money and to be realistic about it. The irony is that the Conservatives are so confused. They say, on one day, that they welcome the fact that more money is being spent, then complain that it is not as much as they would have spent, and then suggest that taxes are too high and they would cut them. It does not add up. That is the sort of economics that defies gravity, or realistic analysis.
The truth is that Conservative Members cannot understand that we are in a new era of co-peration politics—which they absolutely hate and attack at every quarter. The truth is that they hate co-operation and coalition-style politics because they cannot build a coalition even among Conservatives, never mind attaching anyone else. They are a shrinking and irrelevant force.
The Government will receive from the Liberal Democrats coherent and effective opposition, whereas they are getting nothing but incoherence, division, confusion and irrelevance from the Conservatives—who are not fit to oppose.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. After an hon. Member has replied for the party tabling the motion, is it not the normal practice for a Minister to reply on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the occupant of the Chair, and is judged on the basis of the debate and its construction. I call Sir Patrick Cormack.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I appreciate the typical timidity of the fawning hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in seeking to prevent my having a say after this extraordinary debate.
I slightly agreed with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) when he said that the debate has not been a waste of time; in one sense, it has not. This debate has demonstrated that the Liberal Democrat party is totally unsuited to be regarded in the House as an opposition party. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who made, as he always does, a very considerable parliamentary speech—is far more entitled to Opposition time than the Liberal Democrats are. If we are able to determine, through the usual channels, a way of giving one of the Opposition days to him, we should be most interested in doing so.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said that he was speaking in anger rather than in sorrow. He has not only a pretty turn of phrase, but rather a low boiling point. I tell him that I am speaking far more in sorrow than in anger. Has the party of Gladstone and Lloyd George been reduced to this? It is no wonder that, today, the leader of the Liberal Democrats is not in the Chamber, and that those who are, we are told, the principal contenders for his somewhat tarnished crown also are not here.

Mr. Bob Russell: Hang on—I'm here!

Sir Patrick Cormack: Ah—we have a declaration; the first hat is officially thrown into the ring. However, in common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) were among the principal contenders. Where are they? It was also very noticeable that, for much of the debate, the man whom I should regard as the Liberal Democrat party's most distinguished elder statesman—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—lacked the stomach to listen to the drivel that was being served up.
The Liberal Democrat opening speech really was an absolute dog's breakfast. They set themselves up to be holier than Labour and "prole-ier" than us, and try to set an example of what parliamentary democracy is all about, but they have only provided an example of how a once great party has been reduced, first to oblivion, and then to claiming triumph when managing the election of 46 hon. Members to the House. We shall certainly never seek to emulate that example.
The Liberal Democrats have lost their history, but have not yet found their place. They are grubbing around the gutters of politics, trying to get some form of power. Today's Scottish Daily Record says it all:
Lib Dems Cave In".
In Scotland they are catching on to the coat tails of the Labour party—as they would have liked to do in the Principality—to enjoy some little influence and power. The hon. Member for North Cornwall let the cat out of the bag when he told the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is assiduous in his attendance in this place, that the Liberal Democrats have more influence than he has. That may well be true, but whether it will give the staunch Labour supporters of the hon. Member for Pendle much comfort is another matter.
Over the past two years we have seen an extraordinary approach by a group of people who individually are entirely charming but who collectively are what my sergeant major in the cadet force called a proper shower. We have seen them fawning their way into a position of some little influence. In tabling this motion, giving up the opportunity for scrutiny and holding the Executive to account, they have effected the ultimate abdication.
The hon. Member for Gordon told the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that he agreed with his substantive point. So why did the Liberal Democrats not choose that or another important subject to debate? They could have done so, but instead they tried to turn petty, vindictive fire on Her Majesty's Opposition. They did so very ineffectively, trying to show that we were inconsistent and incoherent. With every word that they uttered, they demonstrated that they have a claim to any Nobel prize that is going for inconsistency and incoherence.
The Liberal Democrats are the vegans of British politics. They have an extraordinary ragbag of policies.

Mr. David Heath: Vegans? Explain.

Sir Patrick Cormack: They are not fit to eat the red meat of British politics. In the last Parliament they gave a new meaning to the phrase "the Sunday joint". Among their number is the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), whose purpose in life seems to be to instal pregnancy kits in nurseries and issue condoms to toddlers. The Liberal Democrats should be laughed out of court. They do not deserve to be regarded as a serious Opposition party. In the past two and half hours they have demonstrated beyond peradventure that they are not one.
The Liberal Democrats are also trying to undermine this place. Many of their proposals would take the life away from this Chamber and put it elsewhere. They are attending in reasonable numbers this afternoon, but I cannot remember a day when I have seen so many Liberal Democrats on the Benches. Even today, there have never been more than 30 of them here. In the Division earlier, 38 of their 46 Members voted. This has been a shoddy performance by a rather third-rate crew. I hope that the House will reject their motion with derision and accept our amendment.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): When I first read the motion, I wondered whether it was up to the Government to comment at all. I have never seen a motion quite like it in my 12 years in Parliament, and I was reinforced in that view by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has been in this House for much longer.
Listening to the two opening speeches, I wondered whether I was taking part in some new form of parliamentary spectator sport. One of my colleagues suggested helpfully that I should have brought a whistle and acted as referee—although that would not have met with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you referee our proceedings wisely. During those two speeches, I felt glad and relieved to be sitting with my colleagues on the Labour Benches.
I wondered also which Minister should respond to the debate, because the motion covers a range of topics including policing, education, the NHS and other public services. It was difficult to know how to respond to such a motion. However, there are various elements of the motion that accord with my ministerial responsibility, particularly the references to
Britain's positive role in Europe
—something with which I strongly agree—and the importance of
necessary reforms of the institutions and policies of the European Union", to which I attach considerable importance.
Given the nature of the motion, it is not surprising that the contributions have ranged widely and, in the 10 minutes that I have left, it will be difficult to respond to many of the issues. I shall refer to one or two of the points made at the outset. I support some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), including his strong condemnation of the centralist policies pursued in this country in the 18 years until 1997, and the importance of decentralisation, devolution and the constitutional reforms which I am proud have been undertaken by my Government.

Mr. Rowe: Has the Minister any idea of how upset large numbers of head teachers and health trusts are by the welter of centralising documents that have come pouring out, and by the loss of initiative that they have been forced to accept in the past two years?

Ms Quin: On the contrary, I find that people in my constituency are pleased at the amount of consultation that the Government have undertaken. On a policy for which I used to have some responsibility—the fight against crime and the local partnerships against crime—the local consultations to launch those partnerships were tremendously welcome, and people throughout the country felt that their views on those important issues were being taken into account.
I very much welcome decentralisation and the constitutional changes upon which we have embarked. I welcome devolution in Scotland and Wales, and I welcome also the regional development agencies and decentralisation within England.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House—or perhaps I should say from all three sides—talked about the elections last week. The Government take considerable satisfaction from those elections, which produced the best ever results for a Government two years into their mandate.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister has just made out that the Government believe in consultation. Can I draw her attention to the review of meat inspection charges? The industry has been given 10 days, until noon on 17 May, to respond. The letter went out on 7 May, but some in the industry did not receive it until 11 May. Cabinet guidelines alone would require eight weeks in which to respond. Is that equivalent to consultation for an industry?

Ms Quin: I understand that there had already been many discussions on the issue with the people and the industry concerned. My colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consult widely with the interested parties.
Many hon. Members referred to the elections. Our results were very satisfactory; in fact, on the basis of those results, we would have retained some of our most marginal seats in the House. Indeed, in some cases we even improved on what was previously our best ever result.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Quin: No, because, like all hon. Members, I have been very much constrained by time in this debate.
We have heard some interesting and thoughtful speeches, especially from Labour Members. I listened with especial interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), whose speech I increasingly disagreed with as it proceeded, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who reminded us that, although the Government have responsibility to Parliament, we also have responsibility to the people and must deliver on the manifesto commitments on which we were elected. I am very glad that we are delivering on those commitments.
When I first came into the House in 1987, the Conservative party was in government and seemed to me to be governing in a way that treated people with contempt. We remember issues such as the poll tax, and the arrogance of that large majority, which stands in stark contrast to both the style and the practice of the present Government.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey accused us of bypassing Parliament. I find that strange. As the motion refers to European policy, let me remind her and the House of the improvements that the Government suggested, and then introduced, for European scrutiny procedures, precisely in order to give hon. Members a much better opportunity to question the Government and scrutinise European legislation. I welcome the changes and the fact that all aspects of the European Union can now be scrutinised in the House within a satisfactory time.
Far from bypassing the House, it seems to me, from my admittedly mere two years' experience as a Minister, that one rightly spends a great deal of time dealing with parliamentary questions and correspondence and giving evidence to Select Committees on a whole range of issues. We respond day by day to Parliament's very reasonable demands that we should explain and discuss our policies. Hon. Members use the various procedures open to them to bring that about.
It has been suggested that the Government do things by stealth, and European policy was mentioned in that context. I remind the House that we are committed to holding a referendum on the single currency. It is not possible to avoid debate or introduce a measure by stealth if one is committed to holding a referendum on it.
The Government's record on European policy is a proud one. We have played a positive role in Europe that has brought considerable benefits to our people. The real protection of British interests and the real patriotism are in the positive role that we are pursuing. That shows that


Labour is by far the best party to deliver, in government, good and effective results in Europe for our people.
That is why, at the forthcoming European elections, as well as at other elections thereafter, the electorate should spurn both the oppositions from whom we have heard today and support the Government and our policies.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already called a Division.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear you propose that the original words stand part of the Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman are forgetting the new procedures of the House for raising points of order, which should be done from the Benches by the Chair. I have followed exactly the correct procedure in putting the Question on the amendment first. That Question has to be dealt with before the next Question can arise. I have called a Division on whether the amendment be made.

The House having divided: Ayes 137, Noes 36.

Division No. 174]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fallon, Michael



Amess, David
Flight, Howard


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Brady, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian



Browning, Mrs Angela
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Cash, William
Grieve, Dominic


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gummer, Rt Hon John



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Duncan, Alan



Duncan Smith, Iain
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel



Faber, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Fabricant, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard





Johnson Smith,
Robathan, Andrew


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Ruffley, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
St Aubyn, Nick


Lansley, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan



Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Letwin, Oliver
Shepherd, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Syms, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Mates, Michael 
Walter, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wells, Bowen


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Woodward, Shaun


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Paterson, Owen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric



Prior, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, John
Sir David Madel and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin 
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Skinner, Dennis


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Webb, Steve


Harvey, Nick
Willis, Phil


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Keetch, Paul
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with contempt that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party considers it to be a constructive use of specially allocated opposition time to indulge in a petty and vindictive attack on Her Majesty's Opposition rather than to challenge the executive and hold it to account; and points out that, in so doing, a Party whose record of attendance and willingness to sacrifice principle for party advantage shows that it has no constitutional claim to the position and privileges which are rightly accorded to opposition parties in the parliamentary system.

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What advice can you give the House on the debacle of that vote? Is there a case for amending Standing Orders? A minority Opposition party tabled a motion criticising the main Opposition party and urging us to be competent, but the Liberal Democrats were so incompetent that they failed to provide tellers, and we had to do the work that they were too incompetent to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of that is a matter for the Chair. The procedure followed was perfectly in order.

SELECT COMMITTEES (QUORUM)

Motion made, and Question put,

That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—

'(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Association with Europe (Referendum)

Mr. David Hinchliffe: rose—

Mr.Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will wait for a moment before presenting his petition. Hon. Members who are not staying to hear it should please leave quickly and quietly. Thank you.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I wish to present a petition signed by my constituent Mr. Bernard Calvert of Linton road, Eastmoor, Wakefield. The petition contains only his signature, but he has expressed a desire for it to be formally presented to the House and I am happy to oblige.
The petition states that, as a citizen of the United Kingdom he has not been consulted in any referendum on our association with Europe since 1975 when a referendum was held to ascertain whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would remain in the European Economic Community, which was known as the Common Market. He says that that has happened notwithstanding what he suggests is the progressive surrender of our national sovereignty since then.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House shall urge the Government to:

1. introduce legislation providing for a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the Common Market:

2. call a Speaker's Conference, to comprise members of the House, academics and others, to decide the formulation of the question to be put to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at this Referendum:

3. bear the cost of the aforementioned conference and Referendum through Her Majesty's Treasury and
4. make arrangements for the allocation of equal air time on television, radio and other media to supporters of either side of the question that shall be determined by the aforementioned Conference.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, for the continual well being of the House of Commons, the historical defender or our liberties.

To lie upon the Table.

Job Losses (Renishaw)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: Renishaw is a small, compact community—there are fewer than 1,400 people on the electoral register—which suffered a number of years ago from a pit closure at Renishaw Park, which devastated the community. On 22 April, a foundry went into receivership, which led to 140 people being made redundant. Another 40 people continue to work at the foundry, wondering about their future.
Renishaw foundry is now cosmopolitan. Many people who were employed there came from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and a number also came from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—about one third were from my constituency. However, we are talking about more than 140 job losses, as many suppliers and haulage firms will be affected, as will those who are dependent on people in the community having a full wage packet.
Why did the job losses arise in such stark circumstances? The receiver moved in on 22 April and, almost immediately, 140 workers were made redundant. They had not known that that would occur, although they feared that it might. The community was devastated.
In October 1997, Carbo Ltd. leased 5.8 acres out of a 13.4 acre site in Chesterfield, which it leased to a firm that called itself Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd., although the company had previously had nothing to do with the foundry.
The first payment was planned to be £375,000. In July 1998, the new company purchased Renishaw foundry from British Steel for £800,000 and took on British Steel's pension and other liabilities. The land was bought by a company called Renishaw Properties Ltd. for £35,000. However, the major shareholder of Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. and Renishaw Properties Ltd. is a Mr. Ling. There is a clear connection between the two companies.
In the meantime, Carbo Ltd. persuaded Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. to relinquish the lease at Chesterfield by waiving the outstanding initial fee of £375,000 and promising £500,000 if any profits were made later from a property deal that it hoped for on the site. I shall deal with the property bonanza later, but it was that favourable arrangement that allowed the company to purchase Renishaw foundry.
In return, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. moved about 100 workers and some machinery to the Renishaw foundry, where only 70 workers were then employed. That was completed by the end of 1998. In 1999, and perhaps in the months before, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. lost money hand over fist, even though it did not pay any rent in that period to its other half, Renishaw Properties Ltd. No accounts have been recorded in Companies house for Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. or Renishaw Properties Ltd. I understand that the auditor would not sign the Bryan Donkin accounts because he felt that the company was not viable.
Let us consider the gainers and losers in those interlinked transactions. The workers are clearly losers, with 140 made redundant and 40 facing an insecure

future. The firm's collapse means that they are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance payments for several weeks. They are entitled to a week's redundancy money for each year that they have worked, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) discovered from a question that she tabled, it takes nine weeks on average for the redundancy payments office to deliver payments.
The only substitute for JSA payments is income support on the ground of urgency, yet out of 90 cases in jobcentre areas in north Derbyshire, only six have been given income support so far, and two are due to get it shortly. That is because all income in a household is assessed by a means test. A wife's earnings, or other earnings in the household, are considered for income support purposes. In one case, a wife's disability payments have been taken into account and prevented payment of income support.
The matter has been raised previously by my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for Erewash (Liz Blackman). In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said:
We are aware that, under existing rules, if money is owed from an insolvent employer, full benefit cannot always be paid immediately to ex-employees claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support, although payments can be made to avoid hardship.
Since this problem came to our attention, we have been working to simplify the complex legislation in this area and we are currently considering proposals for changes to the relevant benefit rules."— [Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 715.]
No announcement has yet been made on proposed changes to the legislation. Today, I received a fax from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, pointing out that that will not occur yet, although there is concern about the matter. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry will be able to give a different reply from the one that I received. However, it would be welcome to hear that there was to be urgent consideration of the matter and that an announcement will be made soon of help to overcome a problem that affects many firms going into receivership or into liquidation.
At present, the ex-workers' pensions seem to be guaranteed. A great deal of work has been done by the trade unions. Indeed many people have tried to assist in this desperate situation—no one more than a local district councillor, Brian Ridgeway. He has been behind much of the activity and organisation to try to help those workers who are in very desperate circumstances.
There are losers, but there will also be clear winners, if things turn out as some people hope. The workers will not be among those winners in any way, unless some miraculous changes take place. The first to gain is Carbo, which has got rid of Bryan Donkin's work force, but it has had to meet no redundancy or other payments. Carbo looks to make a fortune in the future. On 27 July 1998, the chairman of Carbo, Bill Goodall, was reported as saying:
The new agreement with BDFL"—
that is Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd.—
substantially improves the development potential for the Chesterfield site. In due course, the disposal of the enlarged site for development will conclude the group's exit from its former Bryan Donkin business and enable both shareholders and the Company to benefit in the resultant value creation.
Matters have developed since then. Last week, a draft plan was submitted to Chesterfield borough council in order to cash in on those provisions. The company is looking to


create a development in which there will be a hotel, supermarkets, a business centre, a traffic centre and a host of other facilities that will lead to considerable financial developments. At present, it is only a draft plan at an early stage. Chesterfield borough council is obliged by law to undertake a screening process under the 1999 environment assessment regulations. However, if Carbo and its associates gain a fortune, at least the ex-Bryan Donkin workers should have some share when that development takes place.
Another winner is British Steel, which sold Renishaw foundry and its land for £835,000 and saved £1.5 million in potential redundancy payments alone. Ex-British Steel workers who were made redundant at Renishaw should also be sharing in British Steel's good fortune.
What about Mr. Ling, who is the key shareholder in Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. and in Renishaw Properties Ltd.? Is he a gainer or a loser? The assets he seems to have are a potential £500,000 from the property deal in Chesterfield, if it goes through, and rent and other moneys from the ownership of Renishaw Properties Ltd. and from any new firm that the receiver is able to find. His liabilities are any unfulfilled hopes that he may have and the possible loss of the £800,000 that he initially paid out to purchase the company.
I want a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry into all those arrangements, so that we know who is getting what and from whom, and I call for immediate action to clear up the matter of the jobseeker's allowance. It is entirely unacceptable that the people who are at the rough end of the affair should be the former work force. I call for attention to be given to losses incurred by suppliers, hauliers and so on, in the area, so that some help may be given to them. We also need to do all that we can to assist the receiver and to encourage the receiver to find a buyer for the foundry. If there is a buyer the re-employment—even if the conditions change—of some of the work force becomes a significant possibility. If a buyer can be found, we should try to ensure that those who are re-employed are those who are losing their jobs now.
Via the Employment Service, we should give the ex-workers every assistance by ensuring that job opportunities are found for them. I understand that there is some possibility of those who are ex-British Steel workers having access to appointments publicised through British Steel. It is just as well that the fight to save the Eckington jobcentre was successful, because that centre serves Renishaw, Killamarsh, Eckington and the surrounding area, a large part of which is affected by the job losses.
I hope that the Minister will consider those matters seriously. A crisis is affecting a community that has been badly hit in the past, so everything that can be done must be done. When I met them, the work force asked me, "Why have these events occurred? Why have we suffered in this way? Who has done this to us? Who has benefited from it?" Answers to those questions can be provided only by an inquiry.

Mr. Tony Benn: I should like to speak, if the Minister will allow me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman may speak, as long as the mover of the motion and the Minister are agreeable.

Mr. Barnes: indicated assent.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): indicated assent.

Mr. Benn: I shall take only a minute, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has handled the case with his usual brilliance.
There is a lot wrong. Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. is one of the most highly skilled companies in Britain, producing for the gas industry. When the company was privatised, no long-term planning was carried out and it got into difficulties. Then, when the foundry was moved and merged, the trade unions went along with it because they thought that jobs would be saved, but that hope was dashed. Now, the workers might be denied not only redundancy pay but jobseeker's allowance.
The Government must take all those issues on board, in addition to the fact that high interest rates damaged the foundry's prospects. I hope that all the points that my hon. Friend has made will be considered extremely carefully. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a former Secretary of State for Industry and for Energy who appreciates the relevance of the company and its contribution to British manufacturing industry.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): In an Adjournment debate, it is traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who secured it, but I should like to say rather more. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always champions his constituents' interests, whether relating to job losses or other matters, with serious, passionate concern. Tonight, he has demonstrated what the House of Commons should be about by the way in which he has brought to our attention an individual case that allows us to extrapolate specific structural questions. I regret that we have only a short time for this debate; it would have been better if we had spent three hours on this topic, rather than on the previous debate.
I listened intently to my hon. Friend's speech, which was full of carefully researched details of the financial transactions that have led to the collapse of the company, and the job losses. I cannot respond to every detail, but I shall certainly follow through every detail that is raised in the House tonight—if not at the Dispatch Box, then elsewhere.
Why were there job losses? I know that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is present, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It concerns the relationship of redundancies and insolvencies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) drew attention.
Why were there job losses? On 22 April 1999, Robert Kelly and John Newell, two partners in Ernst and Young, were appointed joint administrative receivers of Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. They were appointed by the debenture holder, Smurfit Paribas International, at the request of the directors, as the company was no longer able to meet its liabilities as they fell due. Department of Trade and Industry officials have been in touch with the receivers, who explained that, by the time that they were appointed, the company's working capital was exhausted.
It may help if I briefly scan the history of the company. I understand that Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. was incorporated in 1997 to acquire the assets of the foundry division of the company known as Bryan Donkin Company Ltd, which traded from Chesterfield. It paid £2 million for the assets, of which some £800,000 was payable immediately, the balance being spread over three annual instalments.
It appears that problems began at quite an early stage. The receivers have told my officials that draft accounts to 30 September 1998 showed trading losses of about £1 million on a turnover of £6 million. It seems that those losses eventually led to the receivership, which may have stemmed in part from the acquisition of the business of the Renishaw foundry, which was formerly operated by British Steel, in 1998. Simultaneously, the land and buildings at the Renishaw site were acquired by a newly incorporated company called Renishaw Properties Ltd, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, was effectively under the control of the same individuals as Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd.
Having moved to the Renishaw foundry site, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. surrendered the lease of its existing site at Chesterfield back to the landlords, Carbo plc. The sum received by the company on the surrender of the lease appears to have been used partly to fund the acquisition of the Renishaw foundry assets.
That move from the Chesterfield site to Renishaw has been described as unsuccessful. The cost of the move appears to have been substantially underestimated. The move itself seems to have taken two months longer than anticipated. Finally, having established the business at Renishaw, it became apparent to the directors that their turnover forecast could not be reached. Management accounts then showed a substantial trading loss.
The receivers say that, upon their appointment on 22 April 1999, they had no alternative—in the absence of assets that could be rapidly converted into cash to provide further funding—but to serve redundancy notices. Since then, the receivers have carried on trading in a limited way, while advertising the business for sale. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, they are continuing to seek to sell the business as a going concern. He asked whether there might be a buy-out of the foundry. That would be a way forward, if it could be achieved; it would certainly save jobs. My hon. Friend's ambitions in that regard would be helpful.
Let me say a word on the position of the workers. I am told that the receivers have already had a meeting with the full-time union officers representing the work force, and that a further meeting is planned for tomorrow. I understand that my hon. Friend has been invited to that meeting. I hope that other right hon. and hon. Friends who have attended tonight's debate have been invited.
The local jobcentres at Chesterfield, Eckington and Staveley are offering what help they can to the employees who have been made redundant. A recent meeting to discuss help for the work force was attended by representatives of the North Derbyshire training and enterprise council and others, including the Employment Service, North East Derbyshire council and the East Midlands regional development agency. I understand that a bid was then made for assistance from the rapid response fund, to assist retraining and job searches for all those involved. Early entry has been agreed to the work-based learning scheme for adults and to STEPS—a programme centre offering intensive help with job search. Two awareness sessions have been held at the Renishaw hall, and further sessions and presentations are planned.
On 5 May, the Government office for the east midlands received a request from North Derbyshire TEC seeking approval for large-scale redundancy terms to be applied to the redundancies at the Bryan Donkin foundry. The Government office replied on the same day, agreeing to that. The application of large-scale redundancy terms will enable immediate access for Donkin staff to Employment Service and TEC programmes.
I shall deal with jobseeker's allowance and the letter sent earlier today to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. In his letter, my right hon. Friend stated that if employees were dismissed by an insolvent employer without notice or with insufficient notice, they could claim a compensatory payment under the DTI's insolvency provisions, once the notice period had expired. That should be arranged by the receiver.
Before the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, ex-employees could claim unemployment benefit during their notice period and the compensatory payments would then be reduced accordingly. That is not possible under jobseeker's allowance, because of a regulation that treats people as already possessing any income that is due to be paid, regardless of whether it has actually been paid.
Any notice payment due must, therefore, be taken into account in calculating jobseeker's allowance during the notice period, even though it has not yet actually been paid. That is the double bind. People are being penalised twice. We acknowledge that the benefits legislation is complex, but it seems that people are getting caught in the rules and being forced to pay twice. I shall raise the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I know that efforts are being made to conclude the matter of the Donkin employees as soon as possible, and I hope that my hon. Friend, together with our other right hon. and hon. Friends, will make the point powerfully as a result of this debate.
With regard to the company's accounts and the request for an investigation, neither Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. nor Renishaw Properties Ltd. has filed accounts at Companies house. The receivers told officials that the accounts for BDFL for the period ended 30 September 1998 were completed, but had not been signed off by the auditors prior to the receivers' appointment.
The time limit for filing accounts at Companies house for a private company is 10 months from the year end. As the directors had until 31 July 1999 to comply, they are not in default. Renishaw Properties Ltd. was not incorporated until 8 May 1998, so the accounts for its first year are not due.
On the question of an investigation, the joint administrative receivers are under a duty to report to the Secretary of State if it appears to them that the conduct of any of the directors was such as to render him unfit to be concerned in the management of another limited company. On receipt of such a report, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to apply to the court for a disqualification order against that director.
The receivers have told my officials that concerns that have been raised in the House tonight have also been mentioned to them. No doubt they will be taken into account when the receivers consider their report to the Secretary of State.
In addition, the DTI has wide-ranging investigatory powers under companies legislation which can be exercised if there is good reason to do so. The powers are generally used in relation to live companies, but in suitable cases, we would not hesitate to use them where a company was already subject to insolvency proceedings. The receivership is of course at an early stage, but officials will ask the receivers to let us know whether they have continuing concerns, so that the use of the investigative powers can be kept under review as a possibility, in the light of comments that have been made tonight.
I shall say a word about Carbo plc and the development of the Chesterfield site. My hon. Friend raised the question of the proposed redevelopment of the Bryan Donkin factory in Chesterfield. Officials have established that Chesterfield borough council received a planning application to redevelop the site. The council is considering whether to refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Directive 1993, so there is still room for challenge. It seems to me that this particular case is almost a classic tale of asset stripping at the expense of people's livelihoods, and it should be thoroughly investigated. I will do my best to ensure that this matter is taken further after tonight's debate.
As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, and as I have tried to spell out, this case ranges across Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, given its planning responsibilities. I have listened intently to his case.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On rogue employers, there was a story knocking about the DTI before the turn of the year to the effect that, in the interests of the business community and of getting more economic activity, it would not be a bad idea for the new Labour Government to be a little bit more lenient with these eager-beaver employers. Has that idea been put to bed?

Mr. Battle: I hope that it has. We have no intention of backing rogue employers and people who jeopardise other people's livelihoods through malpractice. People may legitimately start up companies—or, indeed, co-operatives—and things might not go well the first time round, but why do we so readily write them off when they have made a fair, open and transparent effort? I think that there have been conversations about whether the bankruptcy laws could separate rogues from people who have made a genuine effort, but we have no intention whatever of going soft on rogues.
In a sense, rogue is too general and too generous a word, because some of this malpractice jeopardises people's lives and blights them for generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire spelled out, that involves not one particular company, but the supply chain and other companies in the area, and communities suffer as a result. If we can look into the detail of this matter, I only hope that an occasional case study—not a hypothetical example—might highlight flaws in the structure that we in the Government ought to address in achieving a legislative framework that would ensure that the same thing does not happen to others.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eight o'clock.